dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 2178644 
Certification of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 23, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"senior software engineer" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record does not 
establish the availability of specialty occupation work for the Beneficiary and certified it to the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for review. 1 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we 
will deny the petition. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). 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 "theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and 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 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates section 214(i)(l) of the Act, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the 
1 Cases that have unusually complex or novel issues of law or fact may be certified to the AAO. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.4(a). 
In July 2018, the Petitioner filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont , seeking review of the 
agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act. In July 2019, the parties stipulated to dismiss the case. 
proffered position must meet one of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 2 Lastly, 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l) states that an H-lB classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will perform services in a specialty occupation ... " ( emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
review the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary would perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Without 
sufficient evidence regarding the duties the Beneficiary would perform, we are unable to determine 
whether the Beneficiary will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of a specialty occupation and a position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). The services the Beneficiary will perform in the position determine: (1) the normal 
minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 
1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review 
for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of 
complexity or 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Further, as recognized by the court in Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2000), 
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. 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner describes itself as a subsidiary of1 I (K-), "a global expert in mobile technology 
and solutions." The Petitioner is "the U.S. entity responsible for providing technical services and 
support for [K-] products to [K-]'s U.S. customers." 
2 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty 
occupation under section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 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 Co1p. 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"). 
2 
On the labor condition application (LCA)3 filed in support of the petition, the Petitioner indicated that 
the Beneficiary would work in-house at its offices located in Texas and Florida. However, on the 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner also indicated that the Beneficiary 
would work off-site at another company's location for all or part of the H-1 B period requested. 4 
In the support letter, the Petitioner further stated "given the nature of our business, we anticipate [the 
Beneficiary] will perform work off-site for our customers nationwide" and "the exact customers sites 
at which [the Beneficiary] may work are unknown at this time." 
The Petitioner described the proffered position's duties as follows: 
• Participating in technical discussions with the [c]ustomer [p]roject [t]eam; 
• Developing, building, and unit testing client side [ m Jo bile application solutions 
using device native API's and application frameworks on [the Petitioner's] 
[p ]latform; 
• Developing integration solutions between the product server side components and 
customer systems; 
• Designing and implementing client side application solutions using [the 
Petitioner's product]; 
• Designing and implementing application solutions for the target domain; 
• Participating in the full life-cycle development process from product definition, 
through design, development, test, release, and maintenance; 
• Supporting installation of the [Petitioner's product]; 
• Responding to and guiding any technical queries on the [Petitioner's] [p ]latform or 
[the Petitioner's] IDE; 
• Performing technical reviews of the project documents and [p ]roj ect [ c ]ode; 
• Recommending coding best practices and sharing any best practices documentation 
with the customer; and 
• Communicating with other [Petitioner] Staff including [the Petitioner's] [p]latform 
team in reference to any issue from the customer due to complexity. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires "a minimum of a Bachelor's degree ( or foreign 
equivalent) in Computer Science, Information Technology, Engineering or a related technical field." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently established 
the services in a specialty occupation that the Beneficiary would perform during the requested period 
3 A petitioner submits the LCA to the U.S. Depaitment of Labor 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). 
4 See Pan 5 of the Form T-129 and Section 4 of the H-1 Band H-1 BI Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement. 
However, in Part 9 of the Form 1-129, the Petitioner stated; the ·'[B]eneficiary will work from [the Petitioner]'s 
headquarters ... [in Texas] and ... [Florida]. [The Petitioner] anticipates [the Beneficiary] may perform work at sites of 
its customers in which case an amended petition will be filed .... " 
3 
of employment, which precludes a determination of whether the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation under sections 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l), § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), and§ 214.2(h)(iii)(A).5 
Although the Petitioner asserts on certification that it "did in fact have specialty occupation work 
available at the time of filing," documents in the record do not sufficiently establish the services the 
Beneficiary would perform. 6 As noted, the record indicates that the Beneficiary would perform 
services for clients, both in-house or offsite. In cases where a beneficiary would provide services to 
another entity, contractual agreements between the petitioner and companies involved in the 
beneficiary's assignment provide information regarding the terms and conditions of the contract. 7 
Such contractual agreements may include the master services agreement (MSA) that outline the 
general nature of services to be provided, and a detailed statement or work (SOW), work order, or 
another similar document to demonstrate the specific work that the beneficiary would provide. 
However, the record does not contain sufficient documentary evidence that satisfactorily establishes 
the services the Beneficiary would perform. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), 8 the Petitioner submitted five SOWs and one 
change order (CO) with its clients, but they are not for the Beneficiary. 9 Further, none of the six 
documents are supported by the respective MSAs pursuant to which the SOWs and CO were executed 
and therefore do not adequately establish the terms and conditions of those agreements. Only one of 
those six documents identifies a specific individual assigned to perform services for a client; however, 
that individual is not the Beneficiary. Therefore, the SOWs and CO do not bear sufficient probative 
value for demonstrating the services that the Beneficiary would perform. Additionally, none of the 
worksites in the SOWs and CO match the worksites provided in the LCA in support of the petition. 10 
The Petitioner emphasizes that the SOWS in the record are only "samples" of "typical Statements of 
Work," not actual SOWs for projects to which the Beneficiary would be assigned. The Petitioner 
5 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt the H-lB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
6 Specifically, on certification. the Petitioner asks "[in] applying the preponderance of the evidence standard and taking 
into account all evidence provided on the record, did [the] Petitioner establish at the time of filing the petition that it would 
have specialty occupation work available for [the] Beneficiary?" 
7 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). Although a petitioner is not required by existing regulation to submit 
contracts or legal agreements between the petitioner and third parties to establish an employer-employee relationship, "the 
petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the benefit sought" and •'if a petitioner provides contracts or legal agreements, 
[an] officer is not precluded from evaluating that evidence in the adjudication of other eligibility criteria." USCIS Policy 
Memorandum PM-602-0114, Rescission of Policy Memoranda at 3 (June 17, 2020), http://www.uscis.gov/legal­
resources/policy-memoranda. 
8 In requesting additional evidence, the Director noted that the Petitioner did "not indicate[] when, where, or for whom the 
beneficiary will be assigned to work" or "document[] the end-client, the vendor (if applicable) or the contracted dates of 
services." The list of types of evidence requested included contracts, statements of work, work orders, and services 
agreements and more, pe1taining to the Beneficiary. 
9 In the brief submitted in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner described the documents as "typical Statements 
of Work," not actual SOWs for projects to which the Beneficiary would be assigned. 
10 One SOW states that the Petitioner's "resources" will work exclusively at the Petitioner's office inl I India. 
not at a client site in the United States. Another states that the Petitioner "shall provide all Services under this SOW from 
[the Petitioner's] offshore location unless otherwise indicated." 
4 
asserts that it should not be required to provide SOWs, naming the Beneficiary, for work to be 
performed at the Petitioner's location. Although a petitioner may be able to establish the substantive 
nature of an in-house position through sample contracts, the samples here do not sufficiently describe 
the work the Beneficiary would likely perform or establish that such work would qualify as a specialty 
occupation. 
For example, the sample SOW from S- includes the following as the scope of services: 
• General application maintenance, including bug fixes and updates; 
• Upgrades to the [Petitioner] Platform software; 
• Development of new functionality for the Custom[ er] Application; 
• Upgrades to the integrations between the Customer Application and [the client's] 
back end systems; 
• Adding features and/or functions to the Customer Application; 
• Providing testing support, regression testing, or feature testing; 
• Project planning, management and meetings; 
• Onsite support for Customer Application delivery management; 
• Infrastructure planning and support; and 
• Production support of the Customer Application on the [client's] hosted hardware 
environment. 
The language from the SOW does not sufficiently establish the substantive nature of the work to be 
performed. The scope of service includes general application maintenance, upgrades, adding features, 
and project planning, management and meetings. Without further details regarding these services, we 
are not able to determine whether performing duties such as "bug fixes and updates" or "onsite 
support" would require theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and attainment of at least a bachelor degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Other documents in the record contain similarly vague language. A sample SOW from C- states that 
the services would include "provid[ing] technical solutions to the team," "work[ing] on POC's for 
technical features that will be integrated in the project," "work[ing] on the development and unit 
testing of assigned tasks," and "support SIT/UAT phases of the project by fixing the issues reported 
on application." A sample SOW from P- reflects that services include: "support installation," 
"participate in technical discussions with P-' s project team," "technical review of the project 
documents," and "help in development as requested." 
Furthermore, the Petitioner also described the duties comprising the proffered position in relatively 
abstract and repetitive terms that lack sufficient detail to establish the substantive nature of the work 
to be performed. For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's duties include 
"[p ]articipating in technical discussions with the Customer Project Team," "[ d]eveloping, building, 
and unit testing client side [ m ]obile application solutions ... ," "[ d]esigning and implementing client 
side application solutions using [the Petitioner's product]," "[s]upporting installation of the 
[Petitioner's product],"and "[d]esigning and implementing application solutions for the target 
domain." 
5 
Although the job duties involve some aspect of developing, designing and implementing software, the 
record does not adequately establish how they would be performed in context of the clients' 
requirements. The Petitioner's generalized description does not convey the substantive nature of the 
work that the Beneficiary would actually perform, or any particular body of highly specialized 
knowledge that would need to be theoretically and practically applied to perform it. 
Moreover, the Petitioner often references tasks dependent on customers or clients, regardless of the 
location at which the Beneficiary would perform his work, which necessitates both (1) identifying the 
client(s) with which the Petitioner contracted the Beneficiary to perform work and (2) establishing the 
client's or clients' required duties and academic qualifications. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. For 
example, although the Petitioner indicated it has its own "homegrown, proprietary technology," the 
Petitioner described the Beneficiary's general work as "design[ing] and develop[ing] mobile 
applications/or our US. customers" (emphasis added). Likewise, in the support letter, the Petitioner 
described its business as "servic[ing] its customers by designing, developing and delivering mobile 
application solutions tailored to customers' unique needs and identities" ( emphasis added). The 
Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary's role would be a senior software engineer and that its senior 
software engineers "play a key role in designing applications and mapping business requirements to 
systems and technical requirements pursuant to the specific requests and needs of our customers" 
( emphasis added). In other words, the record indicates that the Beneficiary would perform services 
for clients upon their request, and the proffered position is not an in-house position dedicated to further 
development of the Petitioner's own technology. 
On certification, the Petitioner asserts that it is not required to prove that it has specialty occupation 
work available where it has established a bona fide job offer. 11 The Petitioner states that "the [p ]etition 
should be adjudicated on the basis of the specialty occupation [the] Beneficiary will hold with [the] 
Petitioner and not on the basis of questioning what work is available to the individual at the time the 
H-1 B was filed." The Petitioner contends that "there is no legislative or regulatory test existing within 
[ the Act] or its regulations requiring a Petitioner to prove availability of work at the time of filing an 
H-1 B petition. The requirement is simply that the Petitioner offer the individual a specialty occupation 
position." 
Contrary to the Petitioner's assertion, the requirement to prove availability of work is coupled with 
the requirement to prove that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. As noted, section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act classifies an H-lB nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is coming 
temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation." See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(l)(i) (defining an H-lB nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is coming to perform 
services in a specialty occupation"). In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of 
filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A petition may not be approved at a future date after a 
petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 
17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm'r 1978). Without knowing what work has actually been secured for a 
beneficiary at the time of filing, we cannot determine that the services to be performed would qualify as 
a specialty occupation. 
11 Specifically, the Petitioner asks, "[i]s [the] Petitioner required to prove that it has specialty occupation work available 
where it has established a bona fide job offer?" 
6 
Furthermore, the Petitioner's assertion that it would assign the Beneficiary to work for a client not 
identified in support of the petition raises questions whether the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. 12 Notably, the Petitioner indicated that the nature of the technology sector is 
"unpredictable" and "changing constantly," and as a result, "it was impossible for us to know which 
client [ the Beneficiary] would be assigned prior to his H-1 B cap approval." The Petitioner stated that 
"[ a ]11 of [our] employees initially work from our headquarter office" and "[ o ]nee the employee has 
been approved for H-1 B or another nonimmigrant status, we begin working with our current clients to 
see where there is the most need for our skilled employees to lead projects." However, whether the 
services to be performed at the Petitioner's headquarter office on its own assignments require a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is separate from whether services 
to be performed according to a client's requirements would require such a degree. 13 
Here, as discussed, the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish the services to be performed and 
whether they require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. See section 101 (a)( l 5)(H)(i)(b) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
The Petitioner further asserts that "[t]his case should be treated like any other [p]etition where [the] 
Beneficiary is working from the [h]eadquarters in a specialty occupation." It analogizes the proffered 
position to an in-house attorney position at a law firm which "the Service would agree this is a specialty 
occupation and award an H-lB without question." 
However, the occupations of attorneys and information technology workers have vast differences. For 
example, practicing as an attorney normally requires a professional degree in law; therefore, evidence 
of specific clients' requirements are not necessary to establish that the services to be performed would 
12 The Petitioner noted that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has approved other petitions that had been 
previously filed on behalf of other employees. We are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility 
has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See Matter of Church 
Scientology Int'!, 19 l&N Dec. 593,597 (Comm'r 1988); see also Sussex Eng'g. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 
(6th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, we are not bound to follow a contradictory decision of a service center. La. Philharmonic 
Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
13 The H-1 B classification is not intended as a vehicle "for employers to bring in temporary workers to meet possible 
workforce needs arising from potential business expansions or the expectation of potential new customers or contracts." 
Petitioning Requirements for the H Nonimmigrant Classification, 63 Fed. Reg. 30419, 30419-20 (proposed June 4, 1998) 
(to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). We understand this federal register was a proposed, not final, rule. Nonetheless, we 
regularly cite to language in the introductory Supplemental Information section preceding the actual proposed amendment 
language because it explains, for public informational purposes during the period for submitting public comments, the 
longstanding practice ofUSCIS when adjudicating speculative H-lB petitions: "Historically, the Service has not granted 
H-IB classification on the basis of speculative, or undetermined, prospective employment" (emphasis added). Petitioning 
Requirements for the H Nonimmigrant Classification, 63 Fed. Reg. 30419, 30420 (proposed June 4, 1998) (to be codified 
at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). Specifically, the proposed rule explained the reasoning behind it as follows, in part: 
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 2 l 4(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-IB 
classification. Moreover, there is no assurance that the alien will engage in a specialty occupation upon 
arrival in this country. 
7 
be in a specialty occupation. 14 In contrast, the services provided by an information technology worker 
may differ significantly based on the specific requirements of a customer, project, contract, or other 
variable factors, and may not necessarily require a particular academic degree.15 Here, as noted, the 
Petitioner did not adequately establish the services that the Beneficiary would perform. Therefore, we 
are unable to determine whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
We farther note that the Beneficiary's services are defined by customers' requirements and needs, 
which may vary in scope and level of complexity, and the record does not contain sufficient evidence 
of the services that the Beneficiary would perform. The record does not contain a description of the 
proffered position's duties, and the academic requirements necessary to perform those duties, from a 
specific client to which the Beneficiary ultimately would be assigned, whether working at the 
Petitioner's or the client's location. 16 Accordingly, we cannot determine whether the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. As recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-
88, where the work is to be performed for entities other than a 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. 
In response to the certification, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary would initially "work 
on projects from [the Petitioner's] offices." However, as discussed above, the record purports that the 
Beneficiary would work on projects/or unspec[fied clients while assigned to the Petitioner's offices, 
not on in-house work for the Petitioner. The Petitioner also asserts in response to the certification that 
the SOWs and CO, discussed above, "establish not only that [the Petitioner] did in fact have specialty 
occupation work available at the time of filing for the subsequent three-year validity period requested 
but also that [the Petitioner] was not required to prove this." Neither claim is supported by the record. 
None of the documents were valid for the employment period requested, they generally do not specify 
an individual assigned to the project, they vaguely describe the respective positions' duties, and in 
several instances they are for work to be performed outside of the United States. Even to the extent 
14 According to the U.S. Depa1tment of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), which provides information 
regarding the duties and educational requirements of various occupations, "[l]awyers must have a law degree and must 
also typically pass a state's written bar examination." Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational 
Outlook Handbook, Lawyers, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/ lawyers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Oct. 14, 2020). 
15 There is a variety of occupations and degree requirements within the information technology industry. For example, the 
Handbook states that an associate's degree may be sufficient for "Computer Suppmt Specialists" and "Computer 
Programmers." Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Support 
Specialists, https ://www. bls. gov/ ooh/ computer-and- information-technology/ computer-support-specialists.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Oct. 14, 2020); Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer 
Programmers, https://v.rv.rw.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-infonnation-technology/computer-programmers.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Oct. 14, 2020). Here, the Petitioner classified the proffered position, "Software Developers, Applications"; 
however, we are unable to detennine if the designation is appropriate for this position because the proper classification 
depends on the actual work the Petitioner has secured for the Beneficiary at the time of filing the petition, which has not 
been established here. 
16 Again, we note that the Petitioner asse1ied that the Beneficiary would work initially at its own offices, albeit for 
unspecified clients. However, the Petitioner also asserted in the petition and throughout the record that the Beneficiary 
ultimately would work at an unidentified client's location. 
8 
that the Petitioner may have specialty occupation work available for projects to which individuals 
other than the Beneficiary are or were assigned, to meet the statutory definition of an H-lB 
nonimmigrant worker, the Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary would perform services in a 
specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner further contends that, in lieu of specific SOWs, the Director should have relied on the 
Petitioner's current client list, public reports regarding its proprietary product, tax returns, and other 
evidence establishing "a bona fide job offer." We disagree. Although evidence of the Petitioner's 
general business operations is critical, that general information is not in itself sufficient to establish 
the services the Beneficiary would perform. In other words, even if the Petitioner had established a 
bona fide job offer in general, the record still must convey the substantive nature of the Beneficiary's 
position in order to establish that the services that the Beneficiary would perform qualify as a specialty 
occupation. 
In summation, despite emphasizing that the Beneficiary ultimately would perform services for clients 
based on their "specific requests" and "unique needs," the record does not establish the clients and 
their requests and needs. Therefore, in addition to the generalized information provided by the 
Petitioner, the record does not establish the services to be performed, which precludes the 
determination of whether the position may qualify as a specialty occupation. 17 
IV. 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 petition is denied. 
17 Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 l&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 l&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
9