dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
DATE: 
INRE: 
PETITION: 
JUL 0 7 2015 PETITION RECEIPT #: 
Petitioner: 
Bene ficiary: 
U.S. Department ot" Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigr ation Services 
Administrativ e Appeals Offic e 
20 Massachus etts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529 -2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 proc eeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision . The Form I-290B 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. 
www.uscis.gov 
. . ···--·--······ -· ··-·- -·---- ·-·--- -----------------
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
48-employee "IT Consulting Services" company established in In order to employ the 
beneficiary in what it designates as a "Computer Programmer 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 reviewed the record of proceeding and determined that the petitioner did not establish 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Specifically, the Director stated that the petitioner had not 
established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in accordance with the 
applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. The Director denied the petition. 
The record of proceeding contains: (1) the petitioner's Form I-129 and supporting documentation; 
(2) the Director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the 
Director's decision; and (5) the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) and supporting 
documentation. We reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision. 1 
For the reasons that will be discussed below, we agree with the Director's decision that the petitioner 
has not established eligibility for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the Director's decision will not be 
disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
To meet its burden of proof in establishing the proffered position as a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the beneficiary meets the following 
statutory and regulatory requirements.
2 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1) defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as one that requires: 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
2 The "preponderance of the evidence" standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the applicant's 
claim is "probably true," where the determination of "truth" is made based on the factual circumstances of 
each individual case. Matt er ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (citing Matter of E-M-, 20 
I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989)). 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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 term "specialty occupation" is further defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii) as: 
An occupation which requires [(1)] 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 requires [(2)] 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, the 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 particul ar 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)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words , this regul atory 
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 Independ ence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); 
Matter of W-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 regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this 
section as stating the necess ary 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, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.P.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.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.P.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-lB petitions for qualified aliens 
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-lB 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 alien, 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 nor 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. 
In ascertaining the intent of a petitioner, USCIS looks to the Form I-129 and the documents filed in 
support of the petition. It is only in this manner that the agency can determine the exact position 
offered, the location of employment, the proffered wage, et cetera. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(9)(i), the Director has the responsibility to consider all of the evidence submitted by a 
petitioner and such other evidence that he or she may independently require to assist his or her 
adjudication. Further, the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H-lB petition 
involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by [ d)ocumentation ... or any other required 
evidence sufficient to establish ... that the services the beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty 
occupation." 
B. Proffered Position 
In the support letter, the petitioner states that the beneficiary will perform the following job duties in 
the proffered position: 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
In general, as a Computer Programmer Analyst, the Beneficiary will confer with 
client management, · customers, and staff to define system goals and then create 
necessary roadmaps, graphs, models, and other materials to document and present 
the steps necessary to realize system goals. The Beneficiary will specify inputs to be 
accessed by the system, design the processing steps, and format the output to meet 
user needs. 
* * * 
APPROXIMATE 
GENERAL DAILY TASK ACTIVITY TIME UTILIZED 
ON EACH TASK 
Responsible for software development cycle, including 30% design, development, and unit testing 
Requirement gathering, developing new reports, writing 
functional specification and program specification, technical 30% 
design, coding reviews, and drafting detailed unit test plans 
Running various reports, monitoring process scheduler, and 10% implementing password controls 
Creating, planning, designing, and executing test scenarios, 15% test cases, and test script 
procedures, as well as debugging 
Working with Quality Control team during integration 
testing and resolving any ISSUeS uncovered during the 15% 
debugging process 
The petitioner also states that the proffered position requires "at least a Bachelor's Degree (or its 
equivalent) in Computer Science or related fields." 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner clarifies that the beneficiary "will be engaged in the software 
development project called the for our client, " In 
addition, the petitioner provided a new job description. More specifically, the petitioner states that 
the position encompasses the following duties: 
APPROXIMATE 
GENERAL DAILY TASK ACTIVITY TIME UTILIZED 
ON EACH TASK 
Responsible for software development 
utilizing J2EE framework, JSP, STRUTS, MVC, EJB, RMI, 
JMS including design, development, and unit testing. 
Design of system architecture, implement changes to 30% existing logical & physical database design & changes to 
existing user interface design. Engage in configuration 
management & develop various components in compliance 
with system design. Integrate modules developed after unit 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
testing. 
Requirement gathering, developing new reports, .. wntmg 
functional specification and program specification by 
interviewing business users, technical design, coding 
reviews, and drafting detailed unit test plans using Microsoft 30% 
Visio, RedMine and Microsoft Project. Engage in resource 
planning, develop[ing] project schedule, & development 
standards. 
Running various reports, monitoring process scheduler, and 
implementing password controls usmg multifactor 10% 
authentication algorithms. 
Creating, planning, designing, and executing test scenarios, 
test cases, and test script procedures, as well as debugging 
using RedMine. Create test cases and acceptance criteria for 
all use cases defined in design specifications and develop 15% 
strategy & tool for Load, Stress, & Performance testing. 
Engage in Peer reviews and code walkthroughs. Also engage 
in integration and system testing. 
Develop quality plan (requirement review, design review, 
code, test review, release review). 
Work with Quality Control team during integration testing 15% 
and resolving any issues uncovered during the debugging 
process. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of 
confirming that the beneficiary "will be providing Computer Programmer Analyst services to the 
project " and that he will be providing these services from the petitioner's office? 
The letter further states that the beneficiary "will engage in the complex analysis, design, testing of 
software systems/applications," and specifically lists the following tasks: 
• Design the application using Java, J2EE technologies[;] 
• Design and develop distributed systems, e-commerce, m-commerce, workflow 
and rich internet applications for I;] 
• Develop application using Java, JSP, Struts, MVC, EJB, RMI, JMS, wireless 
technologies[;] 
• Design and Implement web servers solutions and deploy Java Application 
Servers[; and] 
• Perform Unit testing and system Testing. 
3 Notably, the end-client's address is similar to the petitioner's office address. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
CEO also states that the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's degree "in an 
area such as Computer Science, Engineering or another closely related field." 
C. Analysis 
In the instant case, we find that the petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the 
requirements of the proffered position. The petitioner initially claimed that the position requires a 
bachelor's degree in computer science or related fields. However, in response to the RFE, the 
petitioner submitted a letter from the end-client, which states that the position requires a bachelor's 
degree in computer science, engineering, or another closely related field. No explanation for this 
inconsistency was provided. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in 
the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing 
to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Again, the petitioner has represented that the position requires a bachelor's degree in computer 
science and/or engineering. In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry 
and biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is 
recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of 
section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" 
would essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body 
of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a 
degree in two disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory 
requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the petitioner 
establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position such that the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an 
amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
In other words, while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," 
we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty 
occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than one closely 
related specialty. See section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act; 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes 
even seemingly disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of record establishes how each 
acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 
Again, the petitioner has represented that a bachelor's degree in computer science and/or 
engineering is acceptable. The issue here is that it is not readily apparent that these two fields of 
study are closely related or that the field of engineering is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position proffered in this matter. 
Here and as indicated above, the petitioner, who bears the burden of proof in this proceeding, does 
not establish either (1) that the disciplines are closely related fields, or (2) that the field of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
engineering is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the proffered position. Absent 
this evidence, it cannot be found that normally the minimum requirement for entry into the 
particular position proffered in this matter is a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, under the petitioner's own standards. 
As the evidence of record does not establish how these dissimilar fields of study form either a body 
of highly specialized knowledge or a specific specialty, or its equivalent, the petitioner's assertion 
that the job duties of this particular position can be performed by an individual with a bachelor's 
degree in any of these fields suggests that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
Therefore, absent probative evidence of a direct relationship between the claimed degrees required 
and the duties and responsibilities of the position, it cannot be found that the proffered position 
requires, at best, anything more than a general bachelor's degree. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
The petitioner in this matter provided a list of the beneficiary's proposed duties. 4 As observed 
above, 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, USCIS 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. 
In that regard, we have reviewed the information in the record regarding the petitioner's information 
technology consulting business and the claimed project upon which the beneficiary would work. 
Upon review of this information, we find that the record of proceeding lacks sufficient 
4 With regard to the duties, we note that the petitioner designated the proffered position on the LCA under 
the occupational category "Computer Programmers" as a Level II position. The "Prevailing Wage 
· Determination Policy Guidance" issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) provides a description of 
the wage levels. A Level II wage rate is described by DOL as follows: 
Level II (qualified) wage rates are assigned to job offers for qualified employees who have 
attained, either through education or experience, a good understanding of the occupation. 
They perform moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. An indicator that the 
job request warrants a wage determination at Level II would be a requirement for years of 
education and/or experience that are generally required as described in the O*NET Job 
Zones. 
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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
documentation regarding the actual work that the beneficiary will perform to sufficiently 
substantiate the claim that the petitioner has H-1B caliber Work for the beneficiary for the period of 
employment requested in the petition. That is, the record does not include any work product or 
other documentary evidence to confirm that the petitioner has ongoing projects to which the 
beneficiary will be assigned. Thus, the petitioner has not provided the underlying documentation 
necessary to corroborate that the beneficiary would perform the claimed duties set out in the 
petitioner's letter of support. Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Furthermore, as noted above, the petitiOner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the 
nonimmigrant visa petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1). Evidence that the petitioner creates after the 
issuance of an RFE is not considered independent and objective evidence for establishing eligibility 
for the benefit sought. 
The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted m the H-lB 
program. For example, a 1998 proposed rule documented this position as follows: 
Historically, the Service has not granted H-1B classification on the basis of 
speculative, or undetermined, prospective employment. The H-1B classification is 
not intended as a vehicle 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 business expansions or the expectation of 
potential new customers or contracts. To determine whether an alien is properly 
classifiable as an H-1B 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-1B classification. Moreover, there is no assurance that the alien will engage in a 
specialty occupation upon arrival in this country. 
63 Fed. Reg. 30419, 30419- 30420 (June 4, 1998). 
Without detailed work orders, statements of work (SOW), or similar documentation describing the 
specific duties the petitioner requires the beneficiary to perform, as those duties relate to specific 
projects, users is unable to discern the nature of the position and whether the position indeed 
requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through a baccalaureate program. Without a meaningful job description within the context of non­
speculative employment, the petitioner may not establish any of the alternate criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
In the instant case, the petitioner submitted several documents in support of its petition, including an 
employment agreement between itself and the beneficiary, an SOW, a letter from the end-client, an 
organizational chart, its financial documents, a Master Service Agreement (MSA) between itself 
and (executed on July 22, 2013), and photos of its offices. The evidence does not 
establish, however, the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the beneficiary. There is 
a lack of documentation regarding the claimed project and the beneficiary's specific role in the 
project. 
For instance, the petitioner asserts that "[t]he details of this project are provided in the Statement of 
Work (SOW) for issued by "; however, we find 
that the SOW lacks the necessary level of details regarding the beneficiary's claimed assignment. 
For example, while the SOW broadly describes the activities to be completed and the overall 
positions constituting the petitioner's "team," it does not illuminate what specific tasks will be 
performed, which team member(s) will perform them, and the manner and means through which 
they will be achieved. In fact, the SOW does not identify the beneficiary or any of the individuals 
constituting the petitioner's "team" by name. Furthermore, the SOW indicates that "[t]he team will 
consist of 10 Developers, 2 Testers and 1 Architect." Notably, it does not list the proffered position 
of computer programmer analyst as being part of the "team." In addition, the MSA states that a list 
of all of the petitioner's employees, consultants, and subcontractors providing services to 
would be attached to the MSA; however, no such attachment is appended to the MSA. 
The letter from the end-client, too, is insufficient, as it does not describe the particular duties of the 
beneficiary in detail. It lists the beneficiary's services in general and vague terms that do not appear 
to be specifically tied to the " ' project. The letter does not further explain what 
each of these duties specifically entails, and how each duty specifically relates to the activities and 
timelines outlined in the SOW.5 Notably, the end-client's job duties are significantly different from 
the petitioner's job descriptions for the proffered position submitted with the initial petition and in 
response to the RFE. No explanation for the variances was provided. Again, it is incumbent upon 
the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any 
attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits 
competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
5 We note that, as recognized by the court in Defensor, supra, where the work is to be performed for entities 
other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. See Defensor v. 
Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-388. The court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had 
reasonably interpreted the statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that a 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities 
using the beneficiary's services. Id. at 384. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the 
type and educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to 
perform that particular work. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
Furthermore, upon review of the employment agreement, we note that it does not mention the 
' project. In addition, the agreement states "irrespective of any client location or 
project that you may be assigned to, during the duration of your employment... you shall at all times 
remain an employee of [the petitioner]." According to the agreement, the beneficiary rna y be 
placed at various locations and assigned to various projects and, thus, not necessarily at the 
petitioner's office location and the' 'project as indicated on the Form I-129. 
Based on the lack of detailed information and documentation regarding the " 
project and the specific duties the beneficiary will perform on it, we cannot find that the petitioner 
has met its burden of proof in establishing that the beneficiary will be employed to exclusively 
perform in-house services on this project, as claimed. Thus, we find that the evidence of record is 
insufficient to establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the beneficiary. 
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 of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4.6 
Accordingly, as the evidence of record does not satisfy 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 . For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied. 
III. BEYOND THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the petitioner's appeal, we need not address 
another ground of ineligibility we observe in the record of proceeding. Nevertheless, we will 
briefly note and summarize it here with the hope and intention that, if the petitioner seeks again to 
employ the beneficiary or another individual as an H-lB employee in the proffered position, it will 
6 Even if the proffered position had been established as one located within the "Computer Programmers" 
occupational category (the occupational category certified on the submitted LCA), we note that the U.S. 
Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (the Handbook) specifically states that "some 
employers hire workers with an associate's degree" for such positions. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., "Computer Programmers," 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-programmers.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Jun. 26, 2015). The Handbook therefore would not support the proposition that the position is a 
specialty occupation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
submit sufficient independent objective evidence to address and overcome this additional ground in 
any future filing. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petition must be denied as the petitioner does not establish 
that it had sufficient work during the requested validity period for the beneficiary to perform when 
the petition was filed. The petitioner submitted an SOW, which specifies the delivery due date as 
August 2016. However, in the Form-129, the petitioner requested a validity period through 
September 18, 2017. Although the petitioner claims that "the SOW will be renewed and extended," 
there is insufficient corroborating evidence that the project has actually been extended beyond the 
acknowledged August 2016 due date. 7 By not submitting evidence demonstrating the work that the 
beneficiary will perform during the requested H-1B validity dates, the petitioner precluded the 
Director from exploring whether the petitioner has made a bona fide offer of employment to the 
beneficiary and that it has sufficient work for the beneficiary to perform for the duration of the 
petition. Furthermore, there are no contracts or other evidence in the record demonstrating that any 
particular work exists for the requested employment period. Therefore, beyond the decision of the 
Director, we find that the petitioner does not establish that it has made a bona fide offer of 
employment to the beneficiary. For this additional reason, the petition must be denied. 
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
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), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 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.3d 
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. 8 In visa petition proceedings, it 
7 The end-client's letter vaguely states that this project is "an ongoing, long-term project that is expected to 
last at least the next three years." However, without additional explanation, including why this statement 
differs from the information found in the SOW, the end-client's letter is insufficient to corroborate the 
petitioner's claims. 
8 Since the identified bases for denial are dispositive of the petitioner's appeal, we will not address other 
grounds of ineligibility we observe in the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
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). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.