dismissed H-1B Case: Information Systems

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-D-C-
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 16,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FORA NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a vehicle tracking system business, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as an "information systems manager" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB 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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. In the decision, the Director noted, inter 
alia, that the evidence indicated that the Petitioner was paying the Beneficiary approximately 
$30,000 per year Jess than the wage stated on the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker.1 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. DISCUSSION 
The regulations state that an inaccurate statement anywhere on the Form I-129 or in the evidence 
submitted in connection with the petition mandates its denial. See 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)(l O)(ii); see 
also id. § 103.2(b)(l). 
The Petitioner stated on the Form 1-129 and the labor condition application that the Beneficiary's 
rate of pay would be $90,709 per year. In addition, the Petitioner provided the following 
information on the Form 1-129 (page 5): 
1 The Director noted that there were other inconsistencies in the record and that the Petitioner hadnot demonstrated that 
the proffered position qualified as a specialty occupation. 
---- ----···---
Matter of H-D-C-
9. Other Compensation (Explain) 
I HOUSING ALLOWANCE 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
received: 
• A bi-weekly salary of$2,480 [$64,480 annualized]; 
• a monthly allotment of$2,249 for housing [$26,988 annualized]; and 
• $500 for transportation [$6,000 annualized]. 
On appeal, however, the Petitioner reported that the Beneficiary receives: 
• A salary of$4,990.27 per month [$59,883.24 annualized]; 
• a housing allowance of$2,349 [$28,188 annualized]; and 
• a car allowance of $550 per month [$6,600 annualized]. 
In the appeal brief, the Petitioner further claims that the Beneficiary's annual compensation package 
amounts to $116,224.68. According to the Petitioner, the Beneficiary receives three checks monthly, 
"one containing his salary of$2,480.00, another one of $1,999.10 and a third one of $2,349." 
Thereafter, in response to our RFE, the Petitioner stated the following: 
Please note that the Beneficiary's annual compensation as stated in [response to the 
Director's] RFE is: 
$64,480 
$6,000 
$600 
$28,168 
Salary 
Car allowance 
Christmas bonus 
Housing 
The total amount of compensation is $99,247.00 
The Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the Beneficiary's compensation. 
Further, the Petitioner previously stated on the Form I-129 that the housing allowance was "other 
compensation"- separate from his annual salary, but now states that the housing allowance ($28, 168 
per year according to the Petitioner's most recent response) is included in the Beneficiary's annual 
compensation. 
Moreover, while the Petitioner submitted copies of checks made payable to the Beneficiary, they do 
not indicate what those payments are for and there is no indication that they were given to the 
Beneficiary and cashed. Notably, the housing allowance ($28, 168 per year) does not appear on the 
2014 or 2015 IRS Form W -2PR, Withholding Statements, issued to the Beneficiary as wages or 
reimbursable expenses and fringe benefits. 
2 
Matter of H-D-C-
The Petitioner represented to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that it would pay the 
Beneficiary $90,709 and provide a housing allowance. The evidence, however, does not establish 
that the Petitioner will comply with the terms and conditions it provided in the H-18 petition. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. As this basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's 
·eligibility for the benefit sought, we need not and will not address at this time any additional issues 
in the record of proceeding. 
II. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show 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 20!3). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofH-D-C-, ID# 14814 (AAO May 16, 2016) 
3