dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

MATTER OF E-T-P- LTD. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 16,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology service business, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "systems analyst II" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B 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, California Service Center, denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that: (1) it will engage the Beneficiary in an employer-employee relationship; and (2) the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in her 
findings. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
We will first address whether the Petitioner has established that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation in accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 
A. Legal Framework' 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-T-P- Ltd. 
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: 
(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 
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). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F .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 proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.ff, 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 v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2000). 
B. Proffered Position 
In the H-lB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "systems analyst II." In 
addition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would work for its end-client located 
at m California. 
In response to the Director ' s request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the followingjob 
duties for the position, along with the approximate percentage of time the Beneficiary will spend on 
each duty: 
L Business Process Analysis (Percentage of time- 20%): 
[The Beneficiary] will be responsible for analyzing the following Logistics business 
processes to understand the AS-IS process , which will help identify business needs 
and develop appropriate solutions .... 
She will be preparing flow charts, data models and diagrams to illustrate the business 
processes, which help the organization in improving accuracy of compensation. She 
2 
Matter of E-T-P- Ltd. 
will work closely with the Business area expert to make recommendations for a [sic] 
solutions and work with the technical team to design/develop it. 
II. Requirement Gathering and Analysis (Percentage of time- 30%): 
[The Beneficiary] will be responsible for creating business and functional 
requirement documentation for the development of new and enhanced business 
intelligence system .... 
[The Beneficiary] will Organize Joint Application Design (JAD) sessions with 
logistics business to understand the above requirements and associated process so as 
to re-engineer the existing processes, and then translate this knowledge from users' 
interaction to generate Business Objects or Corda dashboards and reports. This also 
includes conducting GAP and feasibility analysis of the current system to address key 
areas of concern and address them with the user team. The Beneficiary will be the 
main liaison between the business users and the development team. She will closely 
work with the Project manager to ensure that the project plan manager is adhered to 
and the scope creeps/changes are approved and documented. 
III. High Level Design and Development (Percentage to time- 20%): 
[The Beneficiary] will be responsible for coordinating High Level Design 
implementation with the development team and obtaining the sign off from the end­
users. This includes conducting requirement review sessions with the technical teams 
to check requirement feasibility and to analyze the different design and development 
approaches. She will be Partnering with the development team for development of 
back-end Teradata setup, enterprise data \Varehouse, ETL (Extraction -
Transformation- Loading) programs, Business Objects/Corda dashboards, and portal 
setup. 
Additionally, [the Beneficiary] will be communicating any changes or enhancements 
suggested by the end-users to the development team. She will be involved in the 
setup of the Business intelligence system, which will help business users to identify 
incentive plan and to switch on real time feed functionality where it is not already 
implemented and hence increase compensation accuracy. There will also be 
Development of new worktlows to be adopted by the stakeholders in adapting to the 
change. [The Beneficiary] will be the supporting the detailed design and 
development of the software application and will be responsible for providing the 
final approval. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-T-P- Ltd. 
IV. Integration Testing and UAT (Percentage of time- 20%): 
[The Beneficiary] will be responsible for: 
• Creating and executing test plans to test the in-development systems ; 
• Validating the system for data loading, data integrity and business 
requirements; 
• Developing the Requirement Traceability Matrix (RTM) to ensure that all the 
requirements included in the Business and Functional Requirement documents 
are covered as the part of the development initiative. 
• Providing support to the project during the UAT phase and managing any 
bugs/action items in the Radar (Defect Tracking system). 
• Developing post implementation documents such as Help desk support 
documents- AICM Security and Support processes and user manuals. 
V. System Implementation and Maintenance (Percentage of time spent - 1 0%) 
[The Beneficiary] will be monitoring and solving issues encountered during migration 
and first level testing in production. She will be responsible for providing support for 
training 
documentation and end user hyper-care support; Managing SY,Stem resource 
utilization over time to reveal trends so management and IT staff can plan ahead to 
take appropriate action regarding : Hardware Upgrades , Software Upgrades, and 
System Architecture Modifications. 
[The Beneficiary] will be responsible for managing the access of the software 
application in the future and ensuring that the application satisfies the requirements of 
the business users as specified in the requirement document provided. 
According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree or master's degree in 
computer science, information technology , engineering (any field), math, or a related field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter from The letter, signed by the projeCt manager, 
states that "[p ]ursuant to the terms of the MSA, [the Petitioner] has selected [the Beneficiary] to 
provide Requirements gathering, Software design, Software development, Software testing services 
to the department." The end-client does not state the 
Beneficiary's job title or that there are any specific requirements for the position .1 
1 The end-client does not claim that the position requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation, as required by the Act. Section 214(i)(1) of the Act. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-T-P- Ltd 
C. Analysis 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation? Specifically, the record (1) does not describe 
the position's duties with sufficient detail ; and (2) does not establish that the job duties require an' 
educational background , or its equivalent , commensurate with a specialty occupation. 3 
As recognized by the court in Defensor , where the work is to be performed for entities other than the 
Petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-
88. 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. !d. 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. 
In the instant case, the record of proceedings lacks substantive documentation from the end-client 
regarding not only the specific job duties to be performed by the Beneficiary , but also information 
regarding whatever the client may or may not have specified with regard to the educational 
credentials of persons to be assigned to its project. The record of proceedings does not contain 
probative documentation on this issue from (or endorsed by) the company that will 
actually be utilizing the Beneficiary's services (according to the Petitioner) that establishes any 
particular academic requirements for the proffered position. 
The Petitioner , thus, has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary, which 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 alternat~ 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. 
Nevertheless, assuming , for the sake of argument , that the proffered duties as described in the record 
would in fact be the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary, we will analyze them and the 
evidence of record to determine whether the proffered position as described qualifies as a specialty 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of 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. 
5 
Matter of E-T-P- Ltd. 
occupation. To that end and to make its determination as to whether the employment described 
above qualifies as a specialty occupation, we turn to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
1. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of 
Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.4 
On the labor condition application (LCA)5 submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121.6 
The Handbook subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst" states, in 
pertinent part: "A bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, although 
not always a requirement. Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees who have 
skills in information technology or computerprogramming." U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Computer Systems Analysts," 
http :I lwww. bls. gov I oohl computer-and- information- techno logy I computer -systems-analysts. htm#tab-
4 (last visited Feb. 14, 2017). The Handbook also states: "Although many computer systems 
analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement. Many analysts have 
liberal arts degrees and have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere." !d. 
4 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
5 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USC IS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 8 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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 l&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
6 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level II wage. We will consider this selection in our analysis of the 
position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by the DOL provides a description of the wage 
levels. A Level II wage rate is for a petitioner who expects its employee to perform moderately complex tasks that 
require limited judgment. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC ~Guidance~ Revised~ II~ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. /d. 
6 
Matter of E-T-P- Ltd. 
The Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field may be 
common, but not that it is a requirement for entry into these jobs. In fact, this chapter reports that 
"many" computer systems analysts may only have liberal arts degrees and programming or technical 
experience, but does not further qualify the amount of experience needed. The Handbook also notes 
that many analysts have technical degrees, but does not specify a degree level (e.g., associate's 
degree) for these degrees. The Handbook further specifies that such a technical degree is not always 
a requirement. Thus, this passage of the Handbook reports that there are several paths for entry into 
the occupation. 
In addition, the Petitioner referenced the O*NET OnLine Summary Report for the occupational 
category "Computer Systems Analysts" to support the assertion that the proffered position qualifies 
as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner stated that the O*NET assigns a designation of Job Zone 4 
to computer systems analyst positions and, therefore, it is clear that the position is a specialty 
occupation. A Job Zone 4 indicates that a position requires considerable preparation. It does not, 
however, demonstrate that a bachelor's degree in any specific specialty is required, and does not, 
therefore, demonstrate that a position so designated is in a specialty occupation as defined in section 
214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). The O*NET OnLine Help Center provides a 
discussion of the Job Zone 4 designation and explains that this zone signifies only that most, but not 
all of the occupations within it, require a bachelor's degree. See O*NET OnLine Help Center at 
http://www:onetonline.org/help/online/zones. Further, the Help Center discussion confirms that a 
designation of Job Zone 4 does not indicate any requirements for particular majors or academic 
concentrations. Therefore, despite the Petitioner's assertion to the contrary, the O*NET Summary 
Report is not probative evidence that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner also stated that the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" has a 
Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating of "7." Specifically, the occupational category 
"Computer Systems Analysts" has an SVP range of"7.0 to< 8.0." However, the assignment ofSVP 
"7.0 to < 8.0" is also not indicative of a specialty occupation. Section II of the Dictionary of 
Occupational Titles (DOT) Appendix C, Components of the Definition Trailer, addresses the SVP 
rating system and reads: 
II. SPECIFIC VOCATIONAL PREPARATION (SVP) 
Specific Vocational Preparation is defined as the amount of lapsed time required by a 
typical worker to learn the techniques, acquire the information, and develop the 
facility needed for average performance in a specific job-worker situation. 
This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational 
environment. It does not include the orientation time required of a fully qualified 
worker to become accustomed to the special conditions of any new job. Specific 
vocational training includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant 
training, on-the-job training, and essential experience in other jobs. 
7 
Matter of E-T-P- Ltd. 
Specific vocational training includes training g1ven m any of the following 
circumstances: 
a. Vocational education (high school; commercial or shop training; technical school; 
art school; and that part of college training which is organized around a specific 
vocational objective); 
b. Apprenticeship training (for apprenticeable jobs only); 
c. In-plant training (organized classroom study provided by an employer); 
d. On-the-job training (serving as learner or trainee on the job under the instruction of 
a qualified worker); 
e. Essential experience in other jobs (serving in less responsible jobs which lead to 
the higher grade job or serving in other jobs which qualify). 
The following is an explanation of the various levels of specific vocational 
preparation: 
Level 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
Time 
Short demonstration only 
Anything beyond short demonstration up to and including I month 
Over 1 month up to and including 3 months 
Over 3 months up to and including 6 months 
Over 6 months up to and including 1 year 
Over 1 year up to and including 2 years 
Over 2 years up to and including 4 years 
Over 4 years up to and including 10 years 
Over 1 0 years 
Note: The levels ofthis scale are mutually exclusive and do not overlap. 
An SVP rating of"7.0 to< 8.0" indicates "[o]ver 2 years up to and including 4 years." This does not 
indicate that at least a 4-year bachelor's degree is required for an occupational category that has been 
assigned such a rating or, more importantly, that such a degree must be in a specific specialty 
directly related to the occupation. Rather, the SVP rating simply indicates that the occupation 
requires over 2 years up to and including 4 years of training of the wide variety of forms of 
preparation described above, including experiential training. Accordingly, the DOT does not 
indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty (or its equivalent) is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry into these positions. Although the Petitioner references the DOT, it 
does not establish its relevancy to establish the current educational requirements for entry into the 
8 
Matter of E-T-P-Ltd. 
occupation. Therefore, the DOT 1s also not probative evidence to establish that the protJered 
position is a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
2. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "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[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
contemplates the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
a. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quotingHird!Blaker Corp. v. Sava. 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on 
the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating 
that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit 
any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that 
such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." Nor is there any other evidence 
relevant to this prong. Thus, based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we find that 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
b. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
9 
Matter of E-T-P- Ltd. 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner described the proffered position and its business operations, as well as the end-client's 
business operations. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the proffered position has complex duties. 
However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an 
aspect of the proffered position. Again, it appears that the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to 
perform moderately complex tasks that require limited exercise of judgment (by its selection of a 
Level II wage on the LCA) compared to other positions within the same occupation. 7 The 
description ofthe duties provided by the Petitioner and the end-client do not specifically identify any 
tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them 
and does not refute the Handbook's narrative indicating that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is not required. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
3. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
Upon review of the record, we find that the Petitioner did not submit information regarding 
employees who currently or previously held the position. The record does not establish that the 
Petitioner normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
directly related to the duties of the position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
7 Nevertheless, a low wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation, just as a high wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations 
(e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level II position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation 
qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage-level designation may be a relevant factor but 
is not itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-T-P- Ltd 
4. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the B~neficiary is performing complex duties. However , 
relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an 
aspect of the proffered position. That is, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient 
specificity to establish that they are more specialized and complex than other positions in the 
occupational category that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. We also reiterate our earlier comments and findings regarding the 
implications of the position's wage level designation on the LCA. Thus, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and 
complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
II. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP 
Finally, we will briefly address the issue of whether or not the Petitioner will have a valid employer­
employee relationship with the Beneficiary. Upon review, we find that the record of proceedings 
lacks sufficient documentation evidencing what exactly the Beneficiary would do for the period of 
time requested or where exactly and for whom the Beneficiary would be providing services. 
Specifically, the Petitioner has not established the duration of the relationship between the parties. 
With the initial petition, the Petitioner submitted a document entitled "Contract for Consulting 
Services" between itself and along with nine amendments to the contract. Notably, the 
most recent amendment dated June 30, 2015, provides a fee schedule for services from October 1, 
2015, to September 30, 2017. 
The Petitioner also submitted several statements of work (SOW), along with blanket purchase 
orders, between itself and However, none of the documents are signed. Furthermore, 
the SOW, submitted on appeal, states an end date of December 31, 2016 (approximately 2 months 
after the Petitioner's requested start date for H-lB employment). Moyeover, while the SOWs 
provide general descriptions as to the work to be performed by the Petitioner, the documentation 
does not specify the Beneficiary's duties and responsibilities. 
Notably, the SOW provided on appeal 
does not indicate that the Beneficiary will serve as a systems analyst II (as stated in the H-lB 
petition) but rather as an "engineer." There is no indication that the duties of a systems analyst II are 
the same as an engineer. 
II 
(b)(6)
MatterofE-T-P- Ltd. 
Here, the Petitioner requested the Beneficiary be granted H-IB classification from October 1, 2016, 
to August 9, 2019. However, the record of proceedings does not establish that the project will 
continue through August 9, 2019. Thus, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner will 
maintain an employer-employee relationship for the duration of the validity of the requested period. 
A petition must be filed for non-speculative work for the Beneficiary, for the entire period requested, 
that existed as of the time of the petition's filing. USCIS 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 )(I). 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. Therefore, the Director's decision is affirmed, and the 
appeal is dismissed for this additional reason. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is, dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of E-T-P- Ltd, ID# 217931 (AAO Feb. 16, 2017) 
12