dismissed H-1B Case: Environmental Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-E- CORP. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 9, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an environmental abatement of hazardous materials company, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as an "environmental asbestos engineer" 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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. ISSUES 
The Director denied the petition, finding that the evidence of record did not establish that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. In addition, we will also briefly address 
whether: (1) the labor condition application (LCA) submitted by the Petitioner supports the petition; and 
(2) the Beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position.' 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
We will first address whether the evidence of record demonstrates by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. 
A. Law 
For an H-1B petition to be granted, the Petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to establish that it 
will employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. To meet its burden of proof in this 
regard, the Petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the Beneficiary meets the 
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 
1 
We reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision. We follow the preponderance of the evidence 
standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Matter ojC-E- Corp. 
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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A), to qualifY as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter ofW-F-, 
21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) should 
logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
2 
Matter ofC-E- Corp. 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
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 specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H -1 B petitions for qualified 
individuals who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, 
college professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have 
regularly been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that 
Congress contemplated when it created the H-1B 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. users must examine the 
ultimate employment of the 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. 
B. The Proffered Position 
In its support letter dated January 31, 2014, the Petitioner stated that the duties of the environmental 
abatement engineer position are as follow (verbatim): 
In this position, the [B]eneficiary will utilize his academic experience as a real 
estate management professional to design environmental abatement and remediation 
programs to deal with hazardous conditions existing in their buildings or on their 
property in accordance with applicable federal and state law. He will analyze the 
existing conditions and budgeting and prepare a suitable program to remove the 
3 
Matter ofC-E- Corp. 
hazardous conditions as well as prepare programs for our clients to guide them in the 
handling and disposition for hazardous substances in the future. 2 
In its September 12, 2014 support letter, the Petitioner stated the following regarding the 
Beneficiary's duties (verbatim): 
The Beneficiary's duties require him to deal with Petitioner's clients, who 
include predominantly governmental agencies such as school districts and police 
departments, and relatively large corporations who own real estate which is marred 
by environmental hazards such as lead paint and asbestos and petroleum or oil waste. 
He must communicate with them in an intelligent way by providing a written 
proposal, supported by a detailed budget, as to the remediation work which Petitioner 
will carry out and apprise Petitioner's client as to the progress of the work. 
Specifically, the Beneficiary's duties require his ascertainment of a site's 
environmental hazards, his assessment of the extent of a site's environmental hazards 
through information obtained as a result of visual inspection, penetrations by others, 
and results displayed from monitoring equipment, his formulation of 
recommendations as to the method and means to remediate the hazard based on the 
visual inspection, penetrations, and monitoring results, preparation of an estimated 
budget regarding the cost of remediation and schedule for the prosecution of the 
remediation work. 
The Petitioner stated that the "position offered to the Beneficiary requires a bachelor's degree." 
The record also contains a handwritten document, dated December 25, 2014. In this document, the 
Beneficiary's first name was underlined with a list of duties appearing next to it. However, the 
majority of the handwriting is illegible, and it is unclear whether these duties are the duties of the 
proffered position. This document was not signed. Nor does it contain any notation to indicate that 
it was generated by the Petitioner. Therefore, we do not consider this document probative evidence 
for the purpose of demonstrating the duties of the proffered position. 
C. Analysis 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree is a sufficient minimum 
requirement for entry into the proffered position is inadequate to establish that the proposed position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 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. There must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the 
position; thus, the mere requirement of a degree, without further specification, does not establish the 
position as a specialty occupation. C.f Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 
2 Another support letter dated May 1, 2009, contains the identical duties stated in the Petitioner's support letter dated 
January31,2014. 
4 
Matter ofC-E- Corp. 
(Comm'r 1988) ("The mere requirement of a college degree for the sake of general education, or to 
obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, also does not establish 
eligibility."). Thus, while a general-purpose bachelor's degree may be a legitimate prerequisite for a 
particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 
F.3d at 147. 
The Petitioner asserts that its minimum requirement for the proffered position is only a bachelor's 
degree, without further requiring that the degree be in any specific specialty. Without more, the 
Petitioner's statement alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact a specialty 
occupation. The Director's decision must therefore be affirmed and the appeal dismissed on this 
basis alone. 
Further, we find that the evidence of record does not sufficiently establish the substantive nature of 
the proffered position. For H-IB approval, the Petitioner must demonstrate a legitimate need for an 
employee exists and to substantiate that it has H-1B caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period 
of employment requested in the petition. It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to demonstrate it has 
sufficient work to require the services of a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, to perform duties at a level that requires the theoretical and practical 
application of at least a bachelor's degree level of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a 
specific specialty for the period specified in the petition. 
In the petition, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will be employed as an environmental 
asbestos engineer. However, in its support letters, the Petitioner referred to the position as 
"environmental abatement engineer." It is unclear whether these two position are in fact the same. 
The Petitioner did not provide any explanation as to why it used different job titles in the petition 
and in its support letters. "[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. Jd. at 591-92. The record of proceedings does 
not reconcile this inconsistency. 
Furthermore, upon review of the record of proceedings, we find that the Petitioner did not submit a 
job description to adequately convey the substantive work to be performed by the Beneficiary. 
USCIS in this matter must review the actual duties the Beneficiary will be expected to perform to 
ascertain whether those duties require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, as required for classification as a specialty occupation. To accomplish that task in this 
matter, users must analyze the actual duties in conjunction with the specific project(s) to which the 
Beneficiary will be assigned. To allow otherwise, results in generic descriptions of duties that, while 
they may appear (in some instances) to comprise the duties of a specialty occupation, are not related 
to any actual services the Beneficiary is expected to provide. 
Considering the totality of all of the Petitioner's descriptions for the proffered position, we find that the 
evidence of record does not establish the depth, complexity, or level of specialization, or substantive 
Matter ofC-E- Corp. 
aspects of the matters upon which the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will engage. The Petitioner 
described the duties of the proffered position, and the position itself, in relatively generalized and 
abstract terms that do not relate substantial details about the position or its constituent duties. For 
example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will "design environmental abatement and 
remediation programs to deal with hazardous conditions" without providing further details about 
abatement and remediation programs and the specific duties associated with these tasks. Likewise, 
stating that the Beneficiary will "prepare suitable programs to remove the hazardous conditions" reveals 
insufficient details regarding the project itself, the tasks involved with the project, and the Beneficiary's 
actual role in implementing the program. Furthermore, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's 
"duties require him to deal with [the] Petitioner's clients" and that he "must communicate with them 
in an intelligent way." However, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient details as to what 
"deal[ing] with" clients involve, frequency of such interactions, and how such client contacts require 
a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
Such generalized information does not in itself establish a correlation between any dimension of the 
proffered position and a need for a particular level of education, or educational equivalency, in a 
body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. Therefore, it is not evident that the 
proposed duties as described in this record of proceeding, and the position that they comprise, merit 
recognition of the proffered position as a specialty occupation. Thus, as so generally described, we 
find that the descriptions do not illuminate the substantive application of knowledge involved or any 
particular educational attainment associated with such application. The duties as described give very 
little insight to actual tasks that the Beneficiary would perform on a day-to-day basis. Furthermore, we 
find that the Petitioner has not supplemented the job descriptions with documentary evidence 
establishing the substantive nature of the work that the Beneficiary would perform, whatever practical 
and theoretical applications of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty would be required to 
perform such substantive work, and whatever correlation may exist between such work and associated 
performance-required knowledge and attainment of a particular level of education, or educational 
equivalency, in a specific specialty. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not provide any information with regard to the order of importance 
and/or frequency of occurrence with which the Beneficiary will perform the duties listed. Thus, the 
Petitioner provided insufficient information specifying which tasks were major functions of the 
proffered position, and it did not establish the frequency with which each of the duties would be 
performed (e.g., regularly, periodically or at irregular intervals). As a result, the Petitioner did not 
establish the primary and essential functions of the proffered position. 
In this case, the Petitioner has not described the proffered position with sufficient detail to determine 
that the minimum requirements are a bachelor's degree in a specialized field of study. It is 
incumbent on the Petitioner to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the particular position 
that it proffers would necessitate services at a level requiring both the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. When "any person makes an application for a visa or 
any other document required for entry, or makes an application for admission, [ ... ] the burden of 
Matter ofC-E- Corp. 
proof shall be upon such person to establish that he is eligible" for such benefit. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; see also Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972). Although the Petitioner repeatedly claimed that the duties of the proffered position are "so 
complex," the job descriptions it provided do not persuasively support the claim that the position's day­
to-day job responsibilities and duties would require the theoretical and practical application of a 
particular educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty directly related to 
those duties and responsibilities. 
Further, we note that the wage level in the LCA appears to contradict the Petitioner's claim that the 
proffered position is "so complex." However, the Petitioner indicated in the LCA that the proffered 
position corresponds to a level I (entry-level) wage. 3 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 will perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgement; 
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. 
This contradicts the Petitioner's representation that the duties of the proffered position are "so 
complex." 4 
Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we find that the Petitioner has not 
established (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 
3 The wage levels are defined in DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance." A Level I wage rate is 
described 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. 
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. 
4 
The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level l 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, 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 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. 
Matter ojC-E- Corp. 
particular level education of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. Consequently, 
these material omissions preclude a determination that the Petitioner's proffered position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation under the pertinent statutory and regulatory provisions. There is a lack of 
probative evidence substantiating the Petitioner's claims with regard to the duties, responsibilities 
and requirements of the proffered position. 
The failure to establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary 
consequently 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 ofthe specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. Accordingly, as the petitioner has 
not established that it has satisfied 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. 
III. LCA 
A. Law 
The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(i)(B)(2) specifies that certification of an LCA does not 
constitute a determination that an occupation is a specialty occupation: 
Certification by the Department of Labor of a labor condition application in an 
occupational classification does not constitute a determination by that agency that the 
occupation in question is a specialty occupation. The director shall determine if the 
application involves a specialty occupation as defined in section 214(i)(1) of the Act. 
The director shall also determine whether the particular alien for whom H-1 B 
classification is sought qualifies to perform services in the specialty occupation as 
prescribed in section 214(i)(2) of the Act. 
While DOL is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), DOL regulations note that the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits branch, USCIS) is the department 
responsible for determining whether the content of an LCA filed for a particular Form I -129 actually 
supports that petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b), which states, in pertinent part (emphasis added): 
For H-1B visas ... DHS accepts the employer's petition (DHS Form I-129) with the 
DOL certified LCA attached. In doing so, the DHS determines whether the petition is 
supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, whether the occupation 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-E- Corp. 
named in the [LCA] is a specialty occupation . . . and whether the qualifications of 
the nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements of H -1 B visa classification. 
B. Required Wage 
In this matter, the Petitioner stated on the Form I-129 petition that it seeks the Beneficiary's services 
as an environmental asbestos engineer to serve on a full-time basis in New York 
5 
In the LCA, the Petitioner designated the proffered pos1t10n as falling under the occupational 
category "Environmental Engineers" SOC (ONET/OES) Code 17-2081. The Petitioner indicated 
that a Level I wage for this occupation 
was $56,000 per year. The wage source is listed as the OES 
(Occupational Employment Statistics) OFLC (Office of Foreign Labor Certification) Online Data 
Center. 6 The LCA was certified by DOL on January 30, 2014 and signed by the Petitioner on 
February 18, 2014. However, a search of the OFLC Online Data Center database indicates that the 
Level I prevailing wage for the occupational category of "Environmental Engineers" for 
was $61,568 per year at the time the LCA was submitted in this matter. 7 
The Petitioner indicated in the LCA and the Form I-129 that the rate of pay for the proffered position 
is $56,000 per year for full-time employment. Thus, the Petitioner offered wage to the Beneficiary 
is below the Level I prevailing wage level for the occupational classification in the area of intended 
employment. 
Under the H -1 B program, a petitioner must offer a beneficiary wages that are at least the actual wage 
level paid by the petitioner to all other individuals with similar experience and qualifications for the 
specific employment in question, or the prevailing wage level for the occupational classification in 
the area of employment, whichever is greater, based on the best information available as of the time 
of filing the LCA.8 See section 212(n)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(l)(A); Patel v. Boghra, 
5 According to the regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(c)(7) regarding employer wage obligations for H-1 B personnel, "[a] 
full-time week is 40 hours per week, unless the employer can demonstrate that less than 40 hours per week is full-time 
employment in its regular course of business." The Petitioner does not claim, nor has it submitted any documentation to 
demonstrate that within its regular course of business, less than 40 hours per week is full-time employment. 
6 The Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) program produces employment and wage estimates for over 800 
occupations. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/oes/ (last visited 
Feb. I, 20 16). The OES All Industries Database is available at the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center, which 
includes the Online Wage Library for prevailing wage determinations and the disclosure databases for the temporary and 
permanent programs. The Online Wage Library is accessible at http://www.tlcdatacenter.com/. 
7 For additional information regarding prevailing wage for "Environmental Engineers" in 
NY), see the All Industries Database for 7/2013 - 6/2014 for Environmental Engineers at the Office of Foreign Labor 
Certification Data Center, Online Wage Library on the Internet at http://www.tlcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx? 
code=l7-2081< year=14&source=l (last visited Feb. 1, 2016). 
8 The prevailing wage rate is defined as the average wage paid to similarly employed workers in a specific occupation in 
the area of intended employment. The required wage rate means the rate of pay which is the higher of the actual wage 
for the specific employment in question or the prevailing wage rate for the occupation in which a beneficiary will be 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-E- Corp. 
369 Fed. Appx. 722, 723 (ih Cir. 2010). The LCA serves as the critical mechanism for enforcing 
section 212(n)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(l). See 65 Fed. Reg. 80110, 80110-80111 
(indicating that the wage protections in the Act seek "to protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate 
any economic incentive or advantage in hiring temporary foreign workers" and that this "process of 
protecting U.S. workers begins with [the filing of an LCA] with [DOL]"). 
In response to our RFE, the Petitioner submitted an affidavit from its Vice President, 
dated December 23, 2015, in which she stated that the Beneficiary "will be paid no less than the 
prevailing wage as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor." The Petitioner.also asserted that 
the wage listed on the LCA "reflected the prevailing wage for the offered position at the time the 
application was requested to be certified." As discussed above, the wage listed on the LCA is below 
the prevailing wage. The Petitioner did not submit additional evidence to substantiate its claims. 
"[G]oing on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings." In re Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190). 
In the instant case, the record of proceedings does not establish that the Petitioner will pay the 
Beneficiary an adequate wage for his work if the petition were approved. As a result, even if it were 
determined that the Petitioner overcame the other independent reasons for the denial of the petition 
(which it has not), the petition could still not be approved. 
C. Dates of Employment 
In the Form I-129, the Petitioner stated that the dates of intended employment are from August 1, 
2014 to August 1, 2015. However, in the LCA, the Petitioner stated that the period of intended 
employment is from June 23, 2014 to October 1, 2014. Therefore, the certified LCA does not cover 
the dates of intended employment stated on the Form I-129. 
In response to our RFE, the Petitioner stated that it is "in the process of trying to obtain an amended 
LCA." As of the date of this decision, we have not received an LCA from the Petitioner that was 
certified for the dates of intended employment stated on the petition. 9 
The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. 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. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1978). In cases where evidence related to filing eligibility is provided in response to 
a request for evidence, 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 12) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
employed in the geographic area of intended employment. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.715. 
9 As of the date of this decision, we have not received any additiona evidence from the Petitioner. The record, therefore, 
is considered complete. 
10 
Matter ofC-E- Corp. 
Effect where evidence submitted in response to a request does not establish eligibility 
at the time of filing. A benefit request shall be denied where evidence submitted in 
response to a request for evidence does not establish filing eligibility at the time the 
benefit request was filed. 
Here, the record of proceedings does not contain an LCA certified for the dates of intended 
employment as stated on the petition. Therefore, the petition cannot be approved for this additional 
reason. 
IV. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATION 
We do not need to examine the issue of the Beneficiary's qualifications, because the Petitioner has 
not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. In other words, the 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 Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence regarding the 
proffered position to determine whether it will require a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Absent this determination that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent is required to perform the duties of the proffered position, it also 
cannot be determined whether the Beneficiary possesses that degree or its equivalent. Therefore, we 
need not and will not address the Beneficiary's qualifications further, except to note that, in any 
event, the Petitioner did not submit an evaluation of the Beneficiary's foreign degree or sufficient 
evidence to establish that his degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. As such, since evidence was not 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. 
V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
We may deny an application or petition that does not comply with the technical requirements of the 
law even if the Director does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enters., Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 
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 Enters., Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1037; see also BDPCS, Inc. 
v. FCC, 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."). 
1 1 
Matter ofC-E- Corp. 
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 of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013) (citing Matter of 
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493,495 (BIA 1966)). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-E- Corp., ID# 15372 (AAO Feb. 9, 2016) 
12