dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
JUN 1 6 2015 
DATE : 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit) ' 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Offic e 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section JOI(a)(JS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § JJOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
NO REPRESENTATIVE OF RECORD 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-2908) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form 1-2908 web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief , Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, and 
the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petition will be denied. 
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
35-employee "IT Services- Software Development & Information Technology Consulting Services" 
firm established in In order to employ the beneficiary in what it designates as a "Computer 
Systems Analyst" position, the petitioner seeks to classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in a 
specialty occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The Director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner did not establish (I) that it has standing to 
file as the beneficiary's prospective United States employer as that term is defined at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and (2) the availability of specialty occupation work at the time the petition was 
filed. 
The record of proceeding contains: (1) the Form I-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; ( 4) the notice of 
decision; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting materials. We reviewed the record in its entirety 
before issuing our decision. 
1 
As will be discussed below, we have determined that the Director did not err in her decision to deny 
the petition on the employer-employee issue. Accordingly, the Director's decision 'will not be 
disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed. 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION AND THE 
LOCATION(S) OF EMPLOYMENT 
In the Form I-129, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary will work off-site and provided the 
address of employment as " " The Labor Condition Application 
(LCA) submitted to support the Form I-129 listed two places of employment: (1) 
Massachusetts; and the petitioner's own address at (2) 
Virginia. 
In a letter dated April 3, 2014, the petitioner stated that "[the beneficiary] will be engaged with 
" and "will be performing his duties at 
Massachusetts." The petitioner further indicated that the beneficiary will perform the 
following duties for .. 
1 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) . 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISI01 
• Day to day administration of enterprise SAN and Storage that included V-Max, 
DMX% HP 3PAR P740, EVA 8400 and CLARiiON CX3/CX4 using SMC 7.x, 
SYMCLI 7.x Navisphere Manager 6.x and NaviCLI/NavisecCLI 
• Allocation storage using Auto-provisioning groups of V-MAX by creating storage 
groups, port groups, initiator groups and masking views using SMC and SYMCLI 
• Allocation storage by mapping and masking on DMX-3/-4, created Meta devices, 
changed device and FA attributes by using SymCLI and ECC 6.x. 
• Migration of Storage from one VMware ESX server to another using VMware 
SVmotion. 
• Allocation storage to AIX, Solaris, HP, Linux, RedHAT, ESX, and Windows 
servers and also for cluster servers. 
• San software upgrades ( HiCommand Suite, Storage Manager, HDLM) 
• Ensure smooth workflow for day to day Storage administration activities based on 
SLA guidelines and criticality. 
• Storage space provisioning, Configure storage and file systems on UNIX servers 
• Ensuring regular Issues are handled as per SLA agreements & Criticality 
• Specialized in Mentoring engineers for Handling High Severity Incidents 
• Design and Implement backup solutions for LAN free and ZDB. 
• Troubleshot routine critical issues including threshold optimization, servicer 
throughput, ports availability, meeting zoning requirements, one-path down, host 
not seeing storage and storage management problems. 
• Installation of Powerpath on all kinds of operatins systems for load balancing and 
so as NAVI agent to register with Clariions. 
• Maintaining of the ECC infrastructure, Configured DCPs and alerts for 
management of the entire SAN infrastructure 
• Implementation of Virtual LUN Migration to perform non-disruptive migration of 
vcarious volumes among storage tiers fo the same Symmetrixs array and between 
RAID protection schemes. 
• Implementation of Business Continuity solutions for production data using 
TimeFinder BCV (emulation mode on V-MAX and DMX arrays 
• Creation Dynamic RDF groups and implemented SRDF/A for setting up Disaster 
Recovery between 
V-MAX to-V-MAX and enabled consistency on the RDF 
groups. 
• Prior to the Migration, engaged in running EMCgrabs/reports on the servers and 
uploaded them on to the HEAT site to generate host remediation report. 
• Performance Data Migration from DMX % to V-MAX using Open 
Migrator!L VM at the host and SRDF/Open Replicator at the array level in 
separate instances. 
• Involvement in the migration of data using SAN/Copy from CLARiiON CX 
700/CX-3 to CX-4-480. 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Implementation Virtual Provisioning and provisioned storage by configuring 
storage pools (Thin Raid groups), Creating LUNs and Storage groups usmg 
Navisphere Manager 6.x. 
• Installed and configured Cisco Multilayer Fibre Switches , Multilayer Fibre 
Switches, creating VSANs, Port-channels, TE ports and zoning using CLI and 
Fabric Manager. 
• Configuration Brocade 5100 , 5300, 48k/DCX switches , implemented zoning by 
creating aliases, zones and configurations using Brocade CLI and Web Tools . 
• Engage in migrating SAN environment from Brocade 48K Enterprise director to 
Cisco MDS 9513 directors. 
• Installation and configuration Host Bus Adapters (Ernulex and Qlogic) on 
Windows and Linux operating systems for SAN connectivity . 
• Installation Solutions Enabler 7.1.1 and Syrnrnetrix Management Console 7.1.1. 
On Windows. 
III. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP 
The primary basis cited in the decision of denial is the Director's finding that the evidence submitted 
does not demonstrate that, if the visa petition were approved , the petitioner would be the 
beneficiary's United States employer as that term is defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonimmigrant in pertinent part as an alien: 
subject to section 212(j)(2), who is corning temporarily to the United States to 
perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in section 214(i)(l) ... , 
who meets the requirements for the occupation specified in section 214(i)(2) ... , 
and with respect to whom the Secretary of Labor determines and certifies to the 
[Secretary of Homeland Security J that the intending employ er has filed with the 
Secretary [of Labor] an application under section 212(n)(l) .... 
The term "United States employer" is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(h)( 4 )(ii) as follows: 
United States employer means a person, firm, corporation, contractor, or other 
association , or organization in the United States which: 
(1) Engages a person to work within the United States; 
(2) Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees 
under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, .fire, 
supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee; and 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
(3) Has an Internal Revenue Service Tax identification number. 
(Emphasis added); see also 56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61121 (Dec. 2, 1991 ). 
Although "United States employer" is defined in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), it is noted 
that the terms "employee" and "employer-employee relationship" are not defined for purposes of the 
H-1B visa classification. Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) ofthe Act indicates that an alien coming to the 
United States to perform services in a specialty occupation will have an "intending employer" who will 
file a Labor Condition Application with the Secretary of Labor pursuant to section 212(n)(l) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(l) (2012). The intending employer is described as offering full-time or part-time 
"employment" to the H-1B "employee." Subsections 212(n)(1)(A)(i) and 212(n)(2)(C)(vii) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(1)(A)(i), (2)(C)(vii) (2012). Further , the regulations indicate that "United States 
employers" must file a Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129) in order to classify aliens as 
H-lB temporary "employees." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l), (2)(i)(A). Finally, the definition of "United 
States employer" indicates in its second prong that the petitioner must have an "employer-employee 
relationship" with the "employees under this part," i.e., the H-lB beneficiary, and that this relationship 
be evidenced by the employer's ability to "hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any 
such employee." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "United States 
employer"). 
Neither the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) nor U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) 
defined the terms "employee" or "employer-employee relationship" by regulation for 
purposes of the H-1B visa classification, even though the regulation describes H-1B beneficiaries as 
being "employees" who must have an "employer-employee relationship" with a "United States 
employer." !d. Therefore, for purposes of the H-1B visa classification, these terms are undefined. 
The United States Supreme Court has determined that where federal law fails to clearly define the term 
"employee," courts should conclude that the term was "intended to describe the conventional master­
servant relationship as understood by common-law agency doctrine." Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. 
Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 322-323 (1992) (hereinafter "Darden") (quoting Community for Creative Non­
Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989)). The Supreme Court stated: 
"In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of 
agency, we consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which 
the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this inquiry are the 
skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the 
duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to 
assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party's discretion 
over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party's role in hiring 
and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring 
party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and 
the tax treatment of the hired party." 
Darden, 503 U.S. at 323-324 (quoting Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. at 751-
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
752); see also Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440, 445 (2003) 
(hereinafter "Clackamas"). As the common-law test contains "no shorthand formula or magic phrase 
that can be applied to find the answer, ... all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and 
weighed with no one factor being decisive." Darden, 503 U.S. at 324 (quoting NLRB v. United Ins. Co. 
of America, 390 U.S. 254, 258 (1968)). 
In this matter, the Act does not exhibit a legislative intent to extend the definition of "employer" in 
section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act, "employment" in section 212(n)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, or 
"employee" in section 212(n)(2)(C)(vii) ofthe Act beyond the traditional common law definitions. See 
generally 136 Cong. Rec. S17106 (daily ed. Oct. 26, 1990); 136 Cong. Rec. H12358 (daily ed. Oct. 27, 
1990). On the contrary, in the context of the H-lB visa classification, the regulations define the term 
"United States employer" to be even more restrictive than the common law agency definition.2 
Specifically, the regulatory definition of "United States employer" requires H-lB employers to have a 
tax identification number, to engage a person to work within the United States, and to have an 
"employer-employee relationship" with the H-lB "employee." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Accordingly, 
the tem1 "United States employer" not only requires H-1 B employers and employees to have an 
"employer-employee relationship" as understood by common-law agency doctrine, it imposes 
additional requirements of having a tax identification nun1ber and to employ persons in the United 
States. The lack of an express expansion of the definition regarding the terms "employee" or 
"employer-employee relationship" combined with the agency's otherwise generally circular definition of 
United States employer in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) indicates that the regulations do not intend to 
extend the definition beyond "the traditional common law definition" or, more importantly, that 
construing these terms in this manner would thwart congressional design or lead to absurd results. Cf 
Darden, 503 U.S. at318-319. 3 
2 While the Darden court considered only the definition of "employee" under the Employee Retirement 
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § I 002(6), and did not address the definition of 
"employer," courts have generally refused to extend the common law agency definition to ERISA's use of 
employer because "the definition of'employer' in ERISA, unlike the definition of'employee,' clearly indicates 
legislative intent to extend the definition beyond the traditional common law definition ." See, e .g. , Bowers v. 
Andrew Weir Shipping, Ltd., 810 F. Supp. 522 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), aff'd, 27 F.3d 800 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 
513 u.s. 1000 (1994). 
However, in this matter, the Act does not exhibit a legislative intent to extend the definition of "employer" in 
section IOI(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) ofthe Act, "employment" in section 212(n)(I)(A)(i) ofthe Act, or "employee" in 
section 212(n)(2)(C)(vii) of the Act beyond the traditional common law definitions. Instead, in the context of 
the H-1 B visa classification, the term "United States employer" was defined in the regulations to be even 
more restrictive than the common law agency definition. A federal agency's interpretation of a statute whose 
administration is entrusted to it is to be accepted unless Congress has spoken directly on the issue. See 
Chevron, US.A. , Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837,844-845 (1984). 
3 To the extent the regulations are ambiguous with regard to the terms "employee" or "employer-employee 
relationship ," the agency's interpretation of these terms should be found to be controlling unless '"plainly 
erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation ."' Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 , 461 (1997) (citing Robertson 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Accordingly, in the absence of an express congressional intent to impose broader definitions, both the 
"conventional master-servant relationship as understood by common-law agency doctrine" and the 
Darden construction test apply to the terms "employee" and "employer-employee relationship" as used 
in section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) ofthe Act, section 212(n) ofthe Act, and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h). 4 
Therefore, in considering whether or not one will be an "employee" in an "employer-employee 
relationship" with a "United States employer" for purposes of H-lB nonimmigrant petitions, USCIS 
must focus on the common-law touchstone of "control." Clacknmas, 538 U.S. at 450; see also 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining a "United States employer" as one who "has an employer-employee 
relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, 
supervise, or othenvise control the work of any such employee .... " (emphasis added)). 
The factors indicating that a worker is or will be an "employee" of an "employer" are clearly delineated 
in both the Darden and Clackamas decisions. Darden, 503 U.S. at 323-324; Clackamas, 538 U.S. at 
445; see also Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220(2) (1958). Such indicia of control include when, 
where, and how a worker performs the job; the continuity of the worker's relationship with the 
employer; the tax treatment of the worker; the provision of employee benefits; and whether the work 
performed by the worker is part ofthe employer's regular business. See Clackamas, 538 U.S. at 445; 
see also New Compliance Manual, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, § 2-III(A)(l) 
(adopting a materially identical test and indicating that said test was based on the Darden decision); see 
also Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 2000) (determining that hospitals, as the 
recipients ofbeneficiaries' services, are the "true employers" ofH-lB nurses under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h), 
even though a medical contract service agency is the actual petitioner, because the hospitals ultimately 
hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of the beneficiaries). 
It is important to note, however, that the factors listed in Darden and Clackamas are not exhaustive and 
must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Other aspects of the relationship between the parties relevant 
to control may affect the determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists. 
Furthermore, not all or even a majority of the listed criteria need be met; however, the fact finder must 
weigh and compare a combination of the factors in analyzing the facts of each individual case. The 
determination must be based on all of the circumstances in the relationship between the parties, 
regardless of whether the parties refer to it as an employee or as an independent contractor relationship. 
See Clackamas, 538 U.S. at 448-449; New Compliance Manual at§ 2-III(A)(l). 
v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 359, I 09 S.Ct. 1835, 1850, I 04 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) 
(quoting Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414, 65 S.Ct. 1215, 1217, 89 L.Ed. 1700 
(1945)). 
4 
That said, there are instances in the Act where Congress may have intended a broader application of the term 
"employer" than what is encompassed in the conventional master-servant relationship. See, e.g., section 
214(c)(2)(F) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(F) (referring to "unaffiliated employers" supervising and 
controlling L-1 B intracompany transferees having specialized knowledge); section 274A of the Act, 8 U .S.C. 
§ 1324a (referring to the employment of unauthorized aliens). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Furthermore, when examining the factors relevant to determining control, USCIS must assess and 
weigh each actual factor itself as it exists or will exist and not the claimed employer's right to influence 
or change that factor, unless specifically provided for by the common-law test. See Darden, 503 U.S. at 
323-324. For example, while the assignment of additional projects is dependent on who has the right to 
assign them, it is the actual source of the instrumentalities and tools that must be examined, and not 
who has the right to provide the tools required to complete an assigned project. See id. at 323. 
Lastly, the "mere existence of a document styled 'employment agreement"' shall not lead inexorably to 
the conclusion that the worker is an employee. Clackamas, 538 U.S. at 450. "Rather, ... the answer to 
whether [an individual] is an employee depends on 'all of the incidents of the relationship ... with no 
one factor being decisive."' !d. at 451 (quoting Darden, 503 U.S. at 324). 
Employment Location 
The petitioner provided inconsistent information regarding the place of employment. As noted 
earlier, in the Form I-129, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary would work in 
Massachusetts, and its own location in Virginia. The LCA is certified for those two 
locations. In the letter dated April 3, 2014, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary would work 
at Massachusetts. 
In support of the Form I-129, the petitioner submitted a letter from its client, dated 
March 28, 2014 which stated that it has contracted with the petitioner to use the beneficiary's 
services for development of the project. Notably, the client's 
letterhead does not list its address nor does it the mention the location ofthe beneficiary's project.5 
In response to the Director's RFE, the petitioner stated in a letter dated August 4, 2014, that the 
beneficiary will work at its client's location at Georgia. 
The petitioner also submitted a Professional Services Contract with dated March 21, 
2014. The contract states that the beneficiary will work "On-Site" and lists address 
as' 
II 
However, on appeal, the petitioner claims that the beneficiary will work at 
MA and that its assertion that the beneficiary would work in 
Georgia was the result of "human error." The petitioner provided another Professional Services 
Contract, signed by the petitioner and on May 21, 2014, stating that the beneficiary 
will be assigned to work for at the Massachusetts address for two years. 
However, that contract was executed by the petitioner and . on May 21, 2014, after the 
5 The letter is signed by President and CEO of The Jetter provides his office and 
mobile phone numbers but does not list an address. We note that the area codes for both numbers are Georgia 
area codes. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
instant visa petition was submitted.6 Further, the contract still lists address as 
~ ' The petitioner did not provide additional 
evidence to explain the discrepancies. 
Professional Services Contracts 
As discussed, the petitioner submitted two separate Professional Services Contracts with its client, 
, Notably, the second contract submitted on appeal was signed on May 21, 2014. 
However, onthe front page, the contract is dated July 2, 2014. Further, we note that both contracts 
are printed on letterhead. However, is identified as a customer. The 
petitioner did not explain the discrepancies. 7 
Moreover, both contracts state that the start date is on or about October 1, 2014 for 2 years.8 
However, we note that in the Form I-129, the petitioner indicated that the dates of intended 
employment are from October 1, 2014 to September 25, 2017. The petitioner did not submit further 
information to establish that it has additional projects for the validity of the requested employment 
period. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the petition was filed for non-speculative 
work for the beneficiary, for the entire period requested, that existed as of the time of the petition's 
filing. users regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit it is 
seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(l). A visa petition may not be 
approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248. Thus, even 
if it were found that the petitioner would be the beneficiary's United States employer as that term is 
defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), the petitioner did not demonstrate that it would maintain such an 
employer-employee relationship for the duration of the period requested.9 
6 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. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm'r 1978). 
7 When a petition includes numerous errors and discrepancies, those inconsistencies will raise serious 
concerns about the veracity of the petitioner's assertions. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof 
may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in 
support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 5 82, 591 (BIA 1988). 
8 Notably, this contradicts the letter from _ dated March 28, 2014. The letter states that the 
beneficiary's assignment has been scheduled from October I, 2014 to March 2017 with "a strong possibility 
of an extension." However, there is no evidence in the record of proceeding to substantiate its claim. 
9 
The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-1 B program. For 
example, a 1998 proposed rule documented this position as follows: 
Historically, the Service has not granted H-lB classification on the basis of speculative, or 
undetermined, prospective employment. The H-1 B classification is not intended as a vehicle 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Supervision 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a document entitled "Supervision and Control of 
Employees." The petitioner asserted that the beneficiary "will work under the supervision and 
control of [the petitioner] throughout the term of his employment." However, the petitioner is 
located in Virginia and it proposes to assign the beneficiary to work for _ _ in either 
Massachusetts or Georgia which raises the issue of who would supervise, control, and oversee the 
beneficiary's work. The record contains insufficient evidence of who will supervise the petitioner's 
personnel at location(s) and who will assign the beneficiary's tasks and supervise his 
performance. Although the petitioner has identified its own employee, as the 
beneficiary's supervisor, the record does not indicate that Mr. would accompany the 
beneficiary to location(s) to supervise his work. 
The petitioner asserts that the supervision of the beneficiary's work off-site would be accomplished 
by telephone contact, either weekly or somewhat more often; however, the record contains 
insufficient evidence that the petitioner would assign the beneficiary's tasks and supervise his 
performance while the beneficiary is working at _ _ location(s). The beneficiary may, 
as claimed, periodically report on the progress of the project to which he is assigned and the 
petitioner may produce an evaluation of the beneficiary's performance based on those reports. This 
does not alter the fact that the end-user of the beneficiary's services, the entity that would assign the 
beneficiary's tasks and perform a first-hand evaluation ofthe results of the beneficiary's work and the 
acceptability of that work for the project under development, would, more likely than not, have the 
primary responsibility for the beneficiary's day-to-day supervision and for the evaluation of his 
performance. 
Offer Letter 
for an alien to engage in a job search within the United States, or for employers to bring in 
temporary foreign workers to meet possible workforce needs arising from potential busine ss 
expansions or the expectation of potential new customers or contr acts , To determine whether 
an alien is properly classifiable as an H-1 8 nonimmigrant under the statute, the Service must 
first examine the duties of the position to be occupied to ascertain whether the duties of the 
position require the attainment of a specific bachelor's degree . See section 214(i) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the "Act"). The Service must then determine whether the 
alien has the appropriate degree for the occupation. In the case of speculative employment , 
the Service is unable to perform either part of this two-prong analysis and , therefore, is 
unable to adjudicate properly a request for H-1 B classification. Moreover, there is no 
assurance that the alien will engage in a specialty occupation upon an·ival in this country. 
63 Fed. Reg. 30419, 30419 - 30420 (June 4, 1998). While a petitioner is certainly permitted to change its 
intent with regard to non-speculative employment, e.g., a change in duties or job location, it must nonetheless 
document such a material change in intent through an amended or new petition in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 
214 .2(h)(2)(i)(E). 
---·--·--- ---·-···----·-·-······---------- --------- ---- - - - - - -------
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page II 
For H -1 B classification, the petitioner is required to submit written contracts between the petitioner 
and the beneficiary, or if there is no written agreement, a summary of the terms of the oral agreement 
under which the beneficiary will be employed. See 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv)(A) and (B). In 
response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted an after of employment letter dated March 27, 2014. 
Thus, the letter was prepared just a few days prior to the submission of the Form 1-129 petition; 
however, the petitioner did not provide the dates of the beneficiary's employment. Moreover, the 
offer of employment letter states that the beneficiary will serve as a computer systems analyst, but it 
does not provide any level of specificity as to the beneficiary's duties and the requirements for the 
position. Notably, the letter is signed by the beneficiary, but is not dated. Moreover, the font size of 
the offer letter on page 2 is visibly different from page 1. Further, while page 1 is on the petitioner's 
letterhead and lists the petitioner's address on the bottom, page 2 does not have the company logo or 
the address. While an employment agreement may provide some insights into the relationship of a 
petitioner and a beneficiary, it must be noted again that the "mere existence of a document styled 
'employment agreement'" shall not lead inexorably to the conclusion that the worker is an employee. 
Clackamas, 538 U.S. at 450. 
The letter also states that the beneficiary will be paid $69,000 per year with fringe benefits and 
subject to deductions for taxes and other withholdings. While social security contributions, worker's 
compensation contributions, unemployment insurance 
contributions, federal and state income tax 
withholdings, and other benefits are still relevant factors in determining who will control an alien 
beneficiary, other incidents of the relationship, e.g., who will oversee and direct the work of the 
beneficiary, who will provide the instrumentalities and tools, where will the work be located, and 
who has the right or ability to affect the projects to which the alien beneficiary is assigned, must also 
be assessed and weighed in order to make a determination as to who will be the beneficiary's 
employer. Without full disclosure of all of the relevant factors, we are unable to find that the 
requisite employer-employee relationship will exist between the petitioner and the beneficiary. 
Under these circumstances, we find that, more likely than not, the petitioner would not have an 
employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary if the visa petition were approved. The appeal 
will be dismissed and the visa petition denied for this reason. 
IV. ADDITIONAL BASIS 
The record suggests an additional issue that was not addressed in the decision of denial but that, 
nonetheless, also precludes approval of this visa petition. 
With the visa petition, the petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has a bachelor of 
engineering degree in electronics and communication engineering from Bharathiar University in 
India. The petitioner also submitted evidence pertinent to the beneficiary's previous employment. 
The petitioner seeks to rely on the beneficiary's Indian education and degree, or possibly his 
employment experience, or both, to show that he is qualified to work in a specialty occupation 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 12 
positiOn. lfthe petitioner intends to rely on a beneficiary's foreign education and degree to show that 
the beneficiary is qualified to work in a specialty occupation position, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D), require that the petitioner provide an 
evaluation of the beneficiary's foreign education and degree. If the petitioner seeks to rely on the 
beneficiary's employment experience or non-academic training, even in part, to show that the 
beneficiary is has the equivalent of the otherwise requisite college degree required by the proffered 
position, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) require that the 
petitioner provide "[a]n evaluation from an official who has authority to grant college-level credit for 
training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university which has a program 
for granting such credit based on an individual's training and/or work experience,'' attesting that the 
beneficiary has the equivalent of the otherwise requisite degree. No evaluation was provided in this 
case. Therefore, petitioner has not demonstrated, pursuant to the salient regulations, that the 
beneficiary is qualified. to work in any specialty occupation position. The visa petition must be 
denied for this additional reason. 
V. CONCLUSION 
An application or petition that does not comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by us even if the service center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 
2001), ajj'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) 
(noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
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 Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1037, affd. 345 F.Jd 
683; see also BDPCS, Inc. v. Fed. Communications Comm'n, 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."). 
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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.