dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7283185 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 6, 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 proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the 
Petitioner provides a brief and additional evidence, and asserts that the Director erred in denying the 
petition. 
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. § l 184(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"); Defensor, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
As recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. 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. 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. 
II. 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 tum precludes us from understanding the position's substantive nature 
and the determination of whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 2 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B 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. 
2 
To begin with, the record contains inconsistent and ambiguous evidence regarding the Beneficiary's 
proposed work assignments during the requested period of H-lB employment. 3 The Petitioner, 
indicated on the petition and the labor condition application (LCA) that the Beneficiary will be solely 
engaged in performing services "in-house" at its office location in Michigan for the requested period 
of H-1 B employment. 4 Initially, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would be "working on 
Projects won and executed by [the Petitioner in Michigan], noting that she would be primarily working 
"on our internal practice in developing our information technology products I ~ for 
our Clients in USA." 
The Director observed in her request for evidence (RFE) that the Petitioner is a computer consulting 
firm with nine employees, and that the Beneficiary would be employed in-house. She asked for the 
Petitioner's relevant contractual documentation, such as contracts, statements of work (SOWs) and 
work orders with its clients who will be the ultimate recipient of the services performed or work 
product developed by the Beneficiary. She also asked for material documenting the nature of the in­
house projects to which the Beneficiary will be assigned, such as evidence of the Beneficiary's actual 
work assignments, project brochures or other material that outlines, in detail, the Petitioner's products 
or services such as technical documentation and project milestones. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner reiterated that the Beneficiary would be working in-
house on two proprietary software products, the I I and I I projects, which were in 
development. It supplied a brief paragraph about I I but primarily discussed thel I project 
(the project), indicating that it "wants to develop this software to the needs of U.S. clients and cater to 
the U.S. Education/Govt. and Higher Education industry where [the Petitioner] has already done 
reputable work with several industry leaders in USA. 5 It provided an overview of the project, as 
follows: 
The project is an ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) software for Higher Education 
and Research institutes (Colleges and Universities) .... A version of this proprietary 
software has been developed and deployed for Clients in India. However, in the current 
state this software is only suited for Indian Universities and does not fully meet the 
business requirements globally. 
The software needs to be upgraded, re-designed and enhanced so that it can meet 
international standards and at the same time be configured for any higher education 
institution anywhere on the globe. To orchestrate this transformation, [the Petitioner] 
must revamp their IT strategies and roadmaps and ingest the value of cloud, data 
science, artificial intelligence, and [ERP] integration. 
3 The Petitioner must resolve the inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing 
to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 T&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
4 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) of the Act; 20 
C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
5 The Petitioner provided a brochure which listed various clients, as well as a 2012 "Service Portfolio" outlining its 
"capabilities and past projects" for clients within the United States from 1998 through 2008. 
3 
The Petitioner also provided a "high-level" three-year roadmap for the project which indicates that the 
software development focus will be on "data cleaning from existing [] database and other resources" 
in year one; "data visualization - dashboards for connecting key decision makers" in year two, and; 
"data insights - analytics transformation across the organization" in year three. While the roadmap 
outlines various generic information technology development tasks that will be undertaken in the 
furtherance of the project, the record contains insufficient supporting documentation such as project 
plans, application release schedules, staffing and resource allocations, or similar evidence to delineate 
the nature of the actual services the Beneficiary will provide within this development effort. 
For example, according to the Petitioner, the software that is the focus of this endeavor needs to be 
"upgraded, re-designed and enhanced so that it can meet international standards" in order to be 
marketed to clients within the United States. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts "in our experience it 
takes anywhere from 5-8 years to prepare and ready such a project to be launched in a mature market 
like USA." However, the Petitioner has not provided a project plan or other evidence specific to its 
current project development initiative that reflects these project development goals, and the specific 
scope and nature of the Beneficiary's assignment therein. 
Further, though the record shows that the Petitioner successfully marketed the project to educational 
institutions in India through its claimed foreign affiliate organization nine years or more ago, 6 the 
Petitioner has not established that it has current contractual agreements with clients for further 
development of the project in the manner described in the petition. For instance, the Petitioner 
mentions the project and references the I I municipality as its client for which it "intends to utilize 
[the Beneficiary] as a Data Science Consultant." However, it did not provide contractual 
documentation or letters from Detroit (or any other client) to substantiate her prospective work 
assignment on the project. 
Collectively considering the documentation provided about the Petitioner's in-house work for the 
Beneficiary, we conclude that the record lacks probative evidence to identify the scope, duration, and 
magnitude of the Petitioner's in-house information technology projects that are being developed, or 
maintained, at the Petitioner's work location that would form the predominant basis of the 
Beneficiary's in-house employment. It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance of 
evidence that it is qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In 
evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality. Id. The Petitioner has not done so here. 
The Petitioner also asserts in the RFE response and on appeal that "in addition to working on the 
internal project for the [P]etitioner, [the Beneficiary will] also work[] on various contracted clients of 
the petitioner remotely from the [P]etitioner's business location." In response to the Director's RFE, 
the Petitioner provided copies of master service agreements (MS As) with other computer consulting 
firms (mid-vendors), which it describes as "sample contracts," not contracts specific to the 
Beneficiary's employment. The MSAs are general agreements which call for the deployment of the 
Petitioner's staff to work on projects for the mid-vendors' clients pursuant to SOWs, purchase orders, 
6 On appeal, the Petitioner submits letters from various educational institution in India corroborating that the Petitioner's 
foreign affiliate developed and implemented the project for their organizations in 2008, 2009, or 2011. 
4 
or similar documents that would identified the specific services to be provided, the location of the 
assignments, and the requirements that the Petitioner's staff-members would need to possess in order 
to perform the duties of these assignments. The Petitioner has not established the relevance of the 
MSAs to the Beneficiary's in-house assignment as they do not reference the Beneficiary, nor are they 
supported by the underlying SOW s, purchase orders or similar documents that would provide the terms 
and conditions of employment for work assignments under the MSAs. 7 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides emailed 'job orders from our Clients in USA with specific job 
duties matching the skills of the Beneficiary," as evidence of the contractual service work that the 
Beneficiary is to remotely perform for its clients. Again, the Petitioner does not indicate that the 
Beneficiary will be actually be assigned to work under these job orders. Nonetheless, we have 
reviewed this material and find it insufficient to establish the Beneficiary's remote assignment at the 
Petitioner's work location. The submitted job orders are from other computer consulting firms seeking 
staff to work on-site at their own end-client locations, as follows: (1) K- is seeking a data scientist with 
an end-client for on-site employment in Michigan; (2) K-F- is seeking a data scientist with an end­
client for on-site employment in California, and; (3) N-D- is seeking a data scientist with an end-client 
for on-site employment in New Jersey. 
Similarly, the Petitioner provided emails to show that it is seeking to fill two positions for its own end­
client. The first assignment calls for an "enterprise architect" to be employed for 12 months 
commencing in February 2018, with a work location at the end-client's "Main Admin Building" 
located in Georgia. The second assignment is for a "senior BI developer. ... open-ended contract 
position ( one year with the option to renew)." The end-client further specified: "This position requires 
that they work on-site in our Administrative Center [in] I I Georgia. We also require that the 
candidate is an! I area resident. We will not pay for travel or relocation." 
While these job offers present possible work assignments for the Beneficiary at various employment 
locations within the United States, they do not establish the availability of remote contractual service 
work for her at the Petitioner's location. In other words, there is insufficient probative evidence of an 
obligation on the part of the Petitioner's clients to provide any work for the Beneficiary at its work 
location in Michigan, let alone work of specialty occupation caliber for the period of intended H-1 B 
employment. 8 Here, the documentation provided is not probative towards establishing the terms and 
conditions of the Beneficiary's assignment as imposed by the end-client. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 
387-88 (where the work is to be performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client 
companies' job requirements is critical). 
7 We acknowledge that the Petitioner provided a purchase order for a "SAP HCM Concur Consultant," for an end-client 
which indicated the work location was in Kentucky, but would be "primarily remote," commencing in January 2019 for a 
three month term, "with chances of [a] 1 year extension." However, the purchase order does not reflect the actual duties 
to be performed by the consultant. or the end-client's requirements for the position. Additionally, the purchase order's 
specification that the position is "primarily remote" suggests that the work will also be performed at another location, such 
as Kentucky, which is not a designated work location in the LCA submitted with the petition. Notably, the Petitioner does 
not indicate that it intends to assign the Beneficiary to this project. 
8 Matter of Chawathe, 25 T&N Dec. at 376. 
5 
We also observe that the Petitioner has provided inconsistent evidence regarding the location of the 
Beneficiary's proposed employment throughout this proceeding. 9 The Petitioner is a computer 
consulting company who routinely places employees at client locations. The LCA provided in support 
of the petition reflects that the Beneficiary will be solely employed at the Petitioner's office in 
Michigan. In contrast, the Petitioner initially submitted an employer offer letter to the Beneficiary 
which references her employment as an "data scientist consultant" at client locations, noting for 
instance, that she would be required to "repay in full all relocation expenses or advances paid or 
reimbursed to you by [the Petitioner] if you resign or your employment is terminated for cause within 
three months after the date of any relocation to a customer site." 10 On appeal, the Petitioner has 
provided copies of job openings for positions located throughout the United States as evidence of the 
contractual work to which the Beneficiary may be assigned. 11 Therefore, we question whether the 
record of proceeding is sufficient to establish what exactly the Beneficiary would do for the period of 
time requested or where exactly and for whom the Beneficiary would be providing services. 12 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that it has non-speculative work for the 
Beneficiary at its office in Michigan which existed as of the time of the petition's filing. 13 Our 
regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the 
time the petition is filed. 14 A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future 
9 These inconsistencies also raise significant questions as to whether the LCA identifies the actual location(s) of the 
Beneficiary's employment, such that the LCA corresponds to and supports the H-lB petition, as required. See 20 C.F.R. 
§ 655.705(b). See also Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 2015). 
10 Since other issues are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we will not address whether the Petitioner's employment 
contract with the Beneficiary imposes conditions that violate statutory and regulatory provisions related to the Petitioner's 
payment of the required wage, fees and costs. See generally 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a), (b), (c). 
11 Given the contradictory evidence in the record regarding the Beneficiary's intended work location(s), it appears that the 
Petitioner has not provided an itinerary which adequately identifies the specific location(s) where the Beneficiary will 
perfonn services as an H-lB nonimmigrant. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) requires the Petitioner to provide an itinerary 
with the dates and locations of the services to be perfonned. 
12 The Petitioner must also resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies. Matter of Ho, Dec. at 591-92. Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and 
sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
13 The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-lB 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 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-1 B 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-lB classification. Moreover, there is no assurance that the alien will engage in 
a specialty occupation upon arrival in this country. 
Petitioning Requirements for the H Nonimmigrant Classification, 63 Fed. Reg. 30,419, 30,419-20 (proposed June 4, 1998) 
(to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). 
14 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(6)(1), (12). 
6 
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. Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this petition 
was filed for non-speculative work. For this reason, the petition may not be approved. 
Moreover, the purpose of an RFE is to provide a petitioner with an opportunity to clarify whether 
eligibility for the benefit sought has been established when the petition was filed. 15 When responding 
to an RFE, the Petitioner cannot materially change aspects of the proffered position. 16 On the LCA 
submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the 
occupational category "Computer and Information Systems Managers" corresponding to the Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) code 11-3021. 
Considering the material submitted by the Petitioner in response to the Director's RFE we conclude 
that the Petitioner materially changed the occupational category of the proffered position from the 
"Computer and Information Systems Managers" SOC code 11-3021 occupational category designated 
on the LCA to the occupational category "Computer and Information Research Scientists" SOC code 
15-1111 after the filing of the petition. For instance, the Petitioner's RFE response letter asserts: 
The [P]etitioner has offered the [B]eneficiary the position of Data Scientist which fall 
under the SOC CODE 15-1111.00 Computer and Information Research Scientist. ... 
We would like to direct [USCIS '] attention to the enclosed printouts from O*NET and 
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Outlook Handbook [Handbook] 
providing details for the occupation of Computer and Information [Research] Scientist 
under which subject position of Data Scientist falls. 
The Petitioner proceeded to analyze various attributes of the proffered position, such as its submitted 
job duties and educational requirements for the position, citing to various portions of the Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET) summary report and the Handbook chapter for "Computer and 
Information Research Scientist," to support its proposition that the instant position falls "under the 
classification of computer and information scientist." 17 On appeal, the Petitioner maintains "the 
[B]eneficiary has been offered the In-House position of a Data Scientist (which falls under the SOC 
CODE 15-1111.00 Computer and Information Research Scientist) by the employer." 
Importantly, the Petitioner omitted mention of the "Computer and Information Systems Managers" 
occupational category designated in the LCA submitted with the petition in its RFE response and on 
appeal. The Petitioner offers no explanation of why it solely relied on information pertaining to a 
different occupational category within its RFE response and on appeal than the occupational category 
which it designed in the LCA submitted with petition, which raises additional questions regarding the 
15 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
16 A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS 
requirements. See Matter of lzummi, 22 l&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
17 The O*NET summary rep011 and Handbook chapter for the "Computer and Information Research Scientists" SOC code 
15-1111 occupational category are respectively available at https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-l l l 1.00, and at 
https :/ /www. b ls. gov/ooh/computer-and-in form a ti on-techno 1 ogy/ computer-and-information-research-scientists. htm. (Last 
visited Feb. 5, 2020.) 
7 
substantive nature of the proffered position. 18 Therefore, we are unable to determine whether the 
proffered position properly falls within the "Computer and Information Systems Managers" 
occupational category corresponding to SOC code 11-3021. For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently demonstrated that the LCA properly corresponds with and supports the petition, 19 
and has not sufficiently established the substantive nature of the proffered position. 
Moreover, 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 has not done so 
here. 
As discussed, we conclude that the Petitioner has provided insufficient and inconsistent evidence of 
the contractual relationships regarding the Beneficiary's proposed in-house employment, and the 
scope, magnitude and nature of the projects to which she potentially will be assigned. To qualify for 
an H-lB visa, the Petitioner must establish that its proffered position is an H-lB 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. 
Further, the Petitioner has submitted inconsistent information about the job duties that the Beneficiary 
will perform during the course of her in-house assignment. The Petitioner initially provided a 
description of the job functions of the position with the relative percentage of time that she will devote 
to each job function. Later in response to the RFE the Petitioner presented differing time percentages 
for some of the various job functions and expanded the job functions, as follows: 20 
Job Function Initial RFE 
Time% Time% 
Performing Business & Systems Analysis in these areas: data 50% 50% 
analysis, data modelling, business objects (BO)/business 
intelligence (BI), full life cycle implementation; 
18 The Petitioner must also resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. at 591-92. Umesolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability 
and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
19 While Department of Labor (DOL) certifies the LCA, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determines 
whether the LCA's attestations and content corresponds with and supports the H-lB petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) 
("DHS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition .... "). See also 
Matter of Simeio Solutions, 26 T&N Dec. 542. When comparing the standard occupation classification (SOC) code or the 
wage level indicated on the LCA to the claims associated with the petition, USCTS does not purport to supplant DOL's 
responsibility with respect to wage determinations. There may be some overlap in considerations, but USCTS' 
responsibility at its stage of adjudication is to ensure that the content of the DOL-certified LCA "corresponds with" the 
content of the H- IB petition. 
20 We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted additional information for the job duties performed under each job 
function, which for the sake of brevity we will not include here. However, we have closely considered and reviewed this 
material, as with all evidence in the record. 
8 
Taking initiatives for new technologies and various 20% 10% 
software process compliances; 
Modify/Maintain and update databases as per client needs in 10% 15% 
different scenarios; 
Conducting applications programming related to BI and 5% 15% 
analytics to automate tasks and analysis; 
Educate clients on the relative values of different data 5% NIA 
warehouse products. 
Training other associates on use of data warehousing tools 10% 10% 
like impromptu cognos. 
The Petitioner did not provide an explanation for the varying time percentages presented in its RFE 
response relative to those initially submitted. While the Petitioner indicates for instance that half of 
the Beneficiary's time will be devoted to performing business and systems analysis, it did not provide 
consistent and sufficient information with regard to the order of importance or frequency of occurrence 
(e.g., regularly, periodically, or at irregular intervals) with which the Beneficiary will perform other 
duties. 
We farther observe that the Petitioner claimed initially and in response to the RFE that the Beneficiary 
would be a senior team member charged with supervising "5 consultants." We acknowledge that the 
Petitioner described some of the job duties as those typically associated with a senior information 
technology position, indicating that her duties would include "[ o ]rganize and facilitate problem­
solving discussions with the users, technical team, internal operations team, and project managers to 
resolve issues,""[ c ]ollaborate with [p ]roject [ m ]anager for updating project plan," "[ f]unction as 
resident team expert for all configuration issues .... ," and "supervise and train the team about the tools 
used for analytics and reporting." The Petitioner also provided an organization chart which shows that 
the Beneficiary will be a senior data scientist, reporting to a technical lead, in tum a project manager, 
and ultimately the vice president of operations. 21 Notably, the organization chart does not reflect that 
the Beneficiary will supervise any employees, nor does it delineate the "technical team," "internal 
operations team," or the "project managers" within its organizational hierarchy that the Petitioner 
asserts the Beneficiary will "supervise," "organize," or "collaborate" with during the course of her H­
lB employment. 22 Though the Petitioner described the job duties of the position, and presented other 
information about its business operations, the evidence does not sufficiently and consistently illustrate 
the operational structure within the Petitioner's business operations in a manner that would establish 
the Beneficiary's asserted senior team member role. 
Here, the inadequate and inconsistent information in the record does not establish the necessary 
correlation between the proffered position and the need for a particular level of education, or 
educational equivalency, in a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. It is not 
evident that the proposed duties as described in the record, and the position that they comprise, merit 
21 Contrary to the organizational cha11, the Petitioner contemporaneously provided a letter and asserts that the Beneficiary 
"will be reporting directly to [the] President -Director of Operations who will over the Beneficiary's work progress and 
provide technical guidance. 
22 Matter of Ho, Dec. at 591-92. 
9 
recognition of the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 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. 23 
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. We are 
therefore precluded from 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. As the Petitioner has not established eligibility under any criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 24 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. 
23 Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
24 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 further discuss the Petitioner's assertions on appeal. 
10