dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5903059 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 16, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB 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 of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record did not establish that the Petitioner complied with the petition itinerary requirements; that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, or; that the Beneficiary would be qualified to 
perform the duties of the proffered position. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
We will first discuss whether the proffered position qualifies as a 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. 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard. Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010) . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(I) 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 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"). 
B. Proffered Position 
The Petitioner, a web-based employment listing services firm, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
"symfony2 platform manager" [SPM], and indicated that the Beneficiary "has been providing services 
[such as web developer, team leader, and project manager to the Petitioner] as a contractor full-time 
remotely from Russia since January 2015. The Petitioner submitted information about the proffered 
job duties, which we will summarize here for the sake of brevity. For instance, in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a job description for the proffered 
position, along with the approximate percentage of time the Beneficiary will spend on each job 
function, as follows: 
1. Managing and leading a remote distributed [information technology] IT team as 
well as a contracted IT team; ( 40%) 
2. Reviewing all code written by the team members and making sure the code is 
logical, doesn't contain visible mistakes, follows the project's style, meets quality 
standards, doesn't conflict with other developers' work, uses existing code 
efficiently, and is matching the business needs; (18%) 
3. Consulting with senior management to ensure agreement on system principles; 
(15%) 
4. Overseeing day-to-day operation; (11 %) 
5. Making architectural decisions about technologies used and code structure; (4%) 
2 
6. Developing, documenting, and revising system design procedures, test procedures, 
and quality standards; (4%) 
7. Maintaining and monitoring computer programs and systems, including 
coordinating the installation of computer programs and systems; (3%) 
8. Hiring new technology employees and staff; (2%) 
9. Performing risk management to minimize risks; (1 %) 
10. Creating and maintaining project documentation; (1 %) 
11. Establishing and maintaining relationships with third parties for integration with 
their products. (1 %) 
C. Analysis 
For the reasons set out below, we determine that the proffered position does not qualify as a specialty 
occupation. Specifically, the record provides inconsistent and insufficient information regarding the 
proffered position, which in turn precludes us from understanding the position's substantive nature 
and the determination of whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 2 
A crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has sufficiently described the duties of the 
proffered position such that we may discern the nature of the position and whether the position actually 
requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. When determining whether a position 
is a specialty occupation, we look at the nature of the business offering the employment and the 
description of the specific duties of the position as it relates to the performance of those duties within 
the context of that particular employer's business operations. 
The Petitioner, established in 2002, indicates that it has a staff of ten employees, and operates two 
websites, "which are online talent acquisition boards dedicated to helping candidates find their next 
great career opportunity." In response to the Director's RFE, it described the Beneficiary's prospective 
role and responsibilities as a "senior-level position" within its organization, as elaborated on the job 
duties of the position indicated that they include: 
Managing employed and contract teams of developers, preparing technical 
requirements for the developers based on each project's business needs, relating 
technical issues and concerns to senior-level staff: and participating in senior-level staff 
meetings. This position is required to manage all aspects of the technology platforms 
including: Reviewing code changes, extending the platforms to provide additional 
services, integrating technology partners, onboarding new company clients, assisting 
current clients, implementing new solutions, and resolving existing issues in a timely 
manner. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H- IB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
3 
The Petitioner's asserts through its job descriptions and other statements that the proffered position 
will be largely managerial in nature, and that the Beneficiary will be predominantly engaged in 
supervising and overseeing the day-to-day work of the Petitioner's information technology staff. 
However, on a fundamental level, the Petitioner has not sufficiently detailed the scope and nature of 
the actual information technology projects that will require the Beneficiary's managerial oversight. 
Notably, the Director requested such evidence in her RFE, to include an explanation of how the 
Beneficiary's specific job duties relate to the Petitioner's products and services, as well as relevant 
business plans, technical documentation, project milestone tables, marketing analyses, and 
organization charts that would delineate the Petitioner's projects, divisional organization, and staffing 
hierarchy (including the job titles of the positions that the Beneficiary will manage in the proffered 
position, and the job title of the individual he will report to). 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provides printouts of web pages from its websites, and an "HR 
platform features" document which outlines some of the functionality and technical features of its 
websites. This document appears to describe the "as-is" status of the Petitioner's websites, and does 
discuss the initiatives or projects, if any, that are being planned for and designed through further 
website development and deployment. For instance, the "HR" document indicates that"[ o ]ur system 
"HR" is a software-as-a-service job board," and explains that "[a] company wanting to build their job 
board can use it to set one up with minimal effort." We conclude that while this material indicates 
that the Petitioner operates websites, and may be working on additional website features, such as 
"using SMS for job alerts and messages," which will be available at some future date, the record 
contains insufficient supporting documentation such as project plans, application release schedules for 
the information technology projects under development, or other evidence to identify the scope, 
duration, and magnitude of the Petitioner's prospective information technology projects. 
To qualify for an H-1 B visa, the Petitioner must establish that its proffered position is an H-1 B caliber 
position. Here, without the context of a project or definitive work within the framework of the 
Petitioner's business operations, the record does not establish the substantive nature of the proffered 
position. The record lacks evidence sufficiently concrete and informative to demonstrate that the 
proffered position requires a bachelor's degree level of knowledge in a specific specialty. That is, the 
record does not adequately communicate (1) the actual work that the Beneficiary will perform; (2) the 
complexity, uniqueness, or specialization of the tasks; and (3) the correlation between that work and 
a need for a particular level of education and knowledge. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has inconsistently documented and described its staffing structure, which is 
said to include the IT team(s) that the Beneficiary is to manage. For example, the Petitioner indicates 
that the Beneficiary will collectively spend 59% of his time "[m]anaging and leading a remote 
distributed IT team as well as a contracted IT team," "[o]verseeing day-to-day operation[s]," and 
"[r]eviewing all code written by the team members .... " The Petitioner affirmed in the petition that 
it employs 10 individuals, which may include contract staff In response to the Director's RFE, it 
submitted an organization chart which the Petitioner asserted "was [its] current personnel organization 
chart." However, the organizational chart is annotated as "DRAFTvl," and reflects that the Petitioner 
employs at least 24 employees (not 10 employees), as stated in the petition. 
4 
According to the Petitioner's draft organization chart, the Beneficiary reports to the Petitioner's CEO, 
and will supervise 3 PhP developers, 2 QA engineers, a UI/UK developer, a part-time junior engineer, 
a part-time junior developer, as well as 5 prospective positions identified as "TBD." 3 Here, the 
Petitioner has presented inconsistent and insufficient material regarding its staffing hierarchy, which 
is material in this case given the Petitioner's assertions that the majority of the Beneficiary's time will 
be devoted to managing its employees. The material presented lends little insight into the proffered 
position's placement within the Petitioner's organizational hierarchy, in order to establish the 
substantive nature of the Beneficiary's role as an SPMwithin the context of the Petitioner's business 
operations. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). 
Moreover, in determining the nature of a proffered position, the critical element is not the title of the 
position, but the duties of the underlying position. As part of our analysis, we review the duties of the 
proffered position to assess the duties and determine whether the described duties correspond to the 
duties and tasks listed in the O*NET Summary Report for the occupation designated in the labor 
condition application (LCA). 4 On the LCA submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the "Computer Systems Analysts" occupational category at a 
Level II wage level, corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121 from the 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET). 5 As noted above, the Petitioner is seeking to employ 
the Beneficiary as an SPM. However, the record does not establish that the duties of the proffered 
position sufficiently correspond to "Computer Systems Analysts." To determine the duties and 
requirements for the occupational category, we reviewed the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook)'s chapter on "Computer Systems Analysts," which 
indicates: 6 
Computer systems analysts, sometimes called systems architects, study an 
organization's current computer systems and procedures, and design solutions to help 
the organization operate more efficiently and effectively. They bring business and 
information technology (IT) together by understanding the needs and limitations of 
both. 
Computer systems analysts typically do the following: 
3 The organization chart indicates that "all international technical support team members are contract employees," but does 
not delineate where any of its employees are located, or specifically which employees are, or will be, employed as 
contractors. 
4 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that an LCA supp01ts the H-lB petition filed on behalf of the 
Beneficiary. 
5 The Petitioner identified two work locations within the LCA; (1) the Petitioner's office location in Wisconsin, and (2) 
the Beneficiary's apartment in New York. A petitioner submits the LCA to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to 
demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in 
the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other employees with similar duties, experience, and 
qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) ofthe Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
6 We recognize the Handbook as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. All of our references to the Handbook may be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. 
5 
• Consult with managers to determine the role of IT systems in an organization. 
• Research emerging technologies to decide if installing them can increase the 
organization's efficiency and effectiveness. 
• Prepare an analysis of costs and benefits so that management can decide if IT 
systems and computing infrastructure upgrades are financially worthwhile. 
• Devise ways to add new functionality to existing computer systems. 
• Design and implement new systems by choosing and configuring hardware and 
software. 
• Oversee the installation and configuration of new systems to customize them for the 
organization. 
• Conduct testing to ensure that the systems work as expected. 
• Train the systems' end users and write instruction manuals. 
The Petitioner provided job duties for the proffered position which may comport, in part, with the 
tasks described in the "Computer Systems Analysts" occupational category. However, despite the 
Petitioner's categorization of the proffered position as a "Computer Systems Analyst," the petition 
also contains considerable narrative that references a position that predominantly entails managerial 
responsibilities over the Petitioner's IT projects and staffing. As previously noted, at least 59% of the 
Beneficiary's time will be devoted to job functions, such as "[ m ]anaging and leading a remote 
distributed IT team as well as a contracted IT team," "[o]verseeing day-to-day operation[s]," and 
"[r]eviewing all code written by the team members .... " The Petitioner further indicated that the 
Petitioner would perform tasks such as "overseeing work schedule, vacations, and time off/' and 
"[h ]andling posting the job, screening, interviewing, and on-boarding staff when new staff needs to be 
hired, as well as doing the initial training." Notably, the Petitioner also emphasized that the "two main 
responsibilities of this position are ( 1) managing a team of developers .... and (2) setting tasks for the 
team." 
While the Petitioner submitted an LCA designating the "Computer Systems Analysts" occupational 
category for the proffered position, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that these position 
duties and responsibilities are consistent with the tasks of the occupational category. Here, the 
Petitioner has not adequately explained how the duties of the position which it asserts principally 
involve managerial oversight over the Petitioner's IT projects and supervision of its IT staff are closely 
related to the O*NET tasks 7 and the Handbook's duties for the "Computer Systems Analysts" 
occupation. 8 The Petitioner must also resolve these inconsistencies and ambiguities with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, Dec. 591-92. 
The Petitioner maintains that in its RFE response and on appeal that the proffered position corresponds 
to the "Computer Systems Analysts" occupational category. However, we are not persuaded by the 
Petitioner's submissions. We also reviewed the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook)'s chapter on "Computer and Information Systems Managers," which 
indicates: 
7 See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-l 121.00. (Last visited Jan. 15, 2020.) 
8 See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). 
6 
Computer and information systems managers, often called information technology (IT) 
managers or IT project managers, plan, coordinate, and direct computer-related 
activities in an organization. They help determine the information technology goals of 
an organization and are responsible for implementing computer systems to meet those 
goals. 
Computer and information systems managers typically do the following: 
• Analyze their organization's computer needs and recommend possible upgrades for 
top executives to consider. 
• Plan and direct the installation and maintenance of computer hardware and 
software. Ensure the security of an organization's network and electronic 
documents. 
• Assess the costs and benefits of new projects and justify funding on projects to top 
executives. 
• Learn about new technology and look for ways to upgrade their organization's 
computer systems. 
• Determine short- and long-term personnel needs for their department. Plan and 
direct the work of other IT professionals, including computer systems analysts, 
software developers, information security analysts, and computer support 
specialists. 
• Negotiate with vendors to get the highest level of service for the organization's 
technology. 
We observe that many of the job duties of the proffered position appear to be closely related to the 
"Computer and Information Systems Managers" tasks described in the O*NET Summary Report for 
the occupation. 9 Based on the material presented in the record of proceeding, we are unable to 
9 For instance, the O*NET Summary report indicate that "Computer and Information Systems Managers" perform the 
following tasks: 
• Direct daily operations of department, analyzing workflow, establishing priorities, developing standards 
and setting deadlines. 
• Meet with department heads, managers, supervisors, vendors, and others, to solicit cooperation and resolve 
problems. 
• Review project plans to plan and coordinate project activity. Assign and review the work of systems 
analysts, programmers, and other computer-related workers. 
• Provide users with technical support for computer problems. 
• Develop computer information resources, providing for data security and control, strategic computing, and 
disaster recovery. Recruit, hire, train and supervise staff: or participate in staffing decisions. 
• Stay abreast of advances in technology. 
• Consult with users, management, vendors, and technicians to assess computing needs and system 
requirements. 
• Develop and interpret organizational goals, policies, and procedures. 
• Evaluate the organization's technology use and needs and recommend improvements, such as hardware and 
software upgrades. 
• Review and approve all systems charts and programs prior to their implementation. 
• Prepare and review operational reports or project progress reports. 
• Evaluate data processing proposals to assess project feasibility and requirements. 
7 
conclude that the proffered position properly falls solely within the "Computer Systems Analysts" 
occupational category corresponding to SOC code 15-1121, which raises additional questions 
regarding the substantive nature of the proffered position. 
In general, if the duties of a proffered position involve more than one occupational category (i.e., 
"Computer Systems Analysts" and "Computer and Information Systems Managers"), the DOL's 
"Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" states that the employer "should default directly 
to the relevant O*NET-SOC occupational code for the highest paying occupation." 10 At the time the 
Petitioner's LCA was certified, the Level II prevailing wage for "Computer and Information System 
Managers" in the area of intended employment was $149,843 per year, which is significantly higher 
than the prevailing wage for "Computer Systems Analysts" of $86,653 per year. 11 Thus, if the 
Petitioner's duties for the position fall under more than one occupational category, it should have 
chosen the relevant occupational code for the highest paying occupation, which was not "Computer 
Systems Analysts." As the Petitioner indicates that it will pay the Beneficiary $86,653, a rate 
significantly less than the prevailing wage for "Computer and Information Systems Managers," the 
Petitioner has not established that LCA corresponds to the petition, including the occupational 
category certified therein. 12 
The Petitioner also submitted an opinion letter authored byl I Professor at the 
.__ ______ __.of Computer Science and Information Systems,~University. In his letter, the 
professor (1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the 
proffered position; (2) describes the duties proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states that these duties 
require at least a bachelor's degree in information systems, or a related field. We carefully evaluated 
the professor's assertions in support of the instant petition but find them insufficient. 
While the professor alludes to his knowledge of the Petitioner and its business operations, he does not 
discuss such information within his analysis in any detail. Rather, he quotes the short statement that 
the Petitioner initially provided in the petition regarding its business operations, and briefly discusses 
information posted on the homepage of one of the Petitioner's websites. 13 While we appreciate his 
discussion of several of the general duties provided by the Petitioner, that description still falls short 
of providing a meaningful discussion of what the Beneficiary would actually do in the proffered 
position and how those duties actually require the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge. 
• Control operational budget and expenditures. 
• Purchase necessary equipment. 
• Manage backup, security and user help systems. 
See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/l l-3021.00. (Last visited Jan. 15, 2020.) 
10 A prevailing wage determination starts with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering 
the experience, education, and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & 
Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009); 
http:/ /flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHCGuidance _Revised_ I I_ 2009 .pdf 
11 The wages discussed above are for the Beneficiary's New York employment location as specified in the LCA. The New 
York location had the highest wages level for each of these occupational categories, of the two employment locations 
included in the LCA, at the time the LCA was certified. For more information on the prevailing wages, see 
https://flcdatacenter.com/OESWizardStart.aspx. (Last visited Jan. 15, 2020). 
12 See Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
13 See https://www.doccafe.com/ (last visited Jan. 15, 2020). 
8 
For example, the Professor opines that "duties such as managing and leading a remote distributed IT 
team and a contracted IT team could only be performed by a candidate with at least a bachelor's degree 
in information systems, or a related area." He farther alludes to the fact that the Petitioner's revenues 
are dependent upon the Petitioner's "proprietary software platform," concluding that '[t]he entire 
operations of the company depend on the expertise of the Computer Systems Analyst to keep systems 
functional and optimized." However, he does not discuss or provide an analysis of the requirements 
of the proffered position within the context of the Petitioner's information technology projects. Thus, 
he does not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of its operations or how the duties of the position would 
actually be performed within the Petitioner's business enterprise. 
The professor also states that he reviewed the duties of the proffered position, quotes verbatim the 
duties provided by the Petitioner in response to the Director's RFE, and determines that the duties "are 
typical of a Computer Systems Analyst and clearly correspond to the duties listed under the category 
of Computer Systems Analyst in the [Handbook]." He also discusses the O*NET summary report for 
the Computer Systems Analyst occupation, quoting five of the duties contained within the report, 
noting that the proffered position "shares many of the same duties." 
Notably, the professor does not analyze or explain how the specific duties of the position, which the 
Petitioner asserts principally involve managerial oversight over the Petitioner's IT projects and 
supervision of its IT staff, are closely related to the O*NET tasks and the Handbook's duties for the 
"Computer Systems Analysts" occupation. We therefore incorporate our previous discussion 
regarding why we find the Petitioner's selection of the Computer Systems Analyst occupation category 
in the LCA unpersuasive to demonstrate the substantive nature of the position in order to establish that 
the position qualifies as a specialty occupation requiring the attainment of a degree in a specific 
specialty. Accordingly, we conclude the record does not demonstrate that the professor is, as claimed, 
an expert on the current requirements for the proffered position, or that he possessed the requisite 
information to adequately assess the nature of the position. 14 
We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of 
Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord 
with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less 
weight to that evidence. Id. For the sake of brevity, we will not address other deficiencies within the 
professor's analyses of the proffered position. 
Due to inconsistencies and lack of sufficient information in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner 
has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary. This 
precludes a conclusion 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 entry into 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 
14 The Petitioner initially indicated and then reiterated on appeal that it will accept a bachelor's degree in computer science, 
or in an engineering or management field as acceptable degrees for entry into the proffered position. Neither the Petitioner 
nor the professor explain why the professor's requirements for the position, e.g. a bachelor's degree in information systems, 
or a related field, differ from the Petitioner's stated requirements. Matter of Ho, Dec. at 591-92. 
9 
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 of the specific duties, which is the 
focus of criterion 4. 15 
II. ITINERARY 
The next issue before us is whether the Petitioner complied with the itinerary requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B). General requirements for filing immigration applications and petitions are set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l), in pertinent part, as follows: 
Every benefit request or other document submitted to DHS must be executed and filed 
in accordance with the form instructions ... and such instructions are incorporated into 
the regulations requiring its submission. 
Further discussion of the filing requirements for applications and petitions is found at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l): 
Demonstrating eligibility. An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is 
eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the benefit request and must 
continue to be eligible through adjudication. Each benefit request must be properly 
completed and filed with all initial evidence required by applicable regulations and 
other USCIS instructions. Any evidence submitted in connection with a benefit request 
is incorporated into and considered part of the request. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) provides as follows: 
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be 
performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary 
with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS 
as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its 
location on the Form 1-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this 
paragraph. 
As noted above, the Petitioner designated two employment locations within the LCA for the duration 
of the Beneficiary's H-lB employment period. The Director observed in her RFE that the Beneficiary 
would be employed at multiple work locations, noting that USCIS regulations require that petitioners 
requesting services to be performed in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates 
and locations of the services to be provided, and requested the submission of an itinerary. In response 
to the RFE, the Petitioner indicated that while the Beneficiary "may work remotely from his home 
office inl I NY, he will report to the [P]etitioner's business office in I O Jwisconsin," but 
did not submit an itinerary that comported with the regulatory requirements. Thus, the Director denied 
15 As the lack of probative and consistent evidence in the record precludes a conclusion that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation and is dispositive of the appeal, we will not fiuiher discuss the Petitioner's assertions on appeal 
regarding the criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
10 
the petition, in part, concluding that the Petitioner did not comply with the itinerary requirements at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B). 
In light of the above, we conclude that as a necessary condition for approval of an H-1 B visa petition, 
the petition must list the locations where the beneficiary would be employed and be accompanied by 
an itinerary with the dates the beneficiary will provide services at each location. This condition was 
not satisfied in this proceeding. The Petitioner's attempt to amend the petition by submitting an 
itinerary on appeal is ineffective. Again, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing a 
nonimmigrant visa petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A visa petition may not be approved at a future 
date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of 
Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). 
The Petitioner was put on notice of required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide 
it for the record before the visa petition was adjudicated. The Petitioner did not submit the requested 
evidence and now submits it on appeal. However, we will not consider this evidence for any purpose. 
See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. 533,537 (BIA 1988). 
In view of the foregoing, the Petitioner has not overcome the Director's first basis for denying the 
petition, and it has also not met the itinerary requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B). For these 
reasons, the petition may not be approved. Accordingly, we will not disturb the Director's denial of 
the petition on this ground, and we conclude that the petition cannot be approved on the additional 
ground that the requisite itinerary was not filed with the petition. 
III. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
The Director also found that the Beneficiary would not be qualified to perform the duties of the 
proffered position. However, we are required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine 
first, whether the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation, and second, 
whether the Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was 
filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ('The facts of a 
beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner 
intends to employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). As discussed in this decision, the 
Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Therefore, we need 
not and will not address the Beneficiary's qualifications farther. 
IV. 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 the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11