dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-, INC . 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 26, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , an information technology consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "business systems analyst" under the H-lB nonirnmigrant 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-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 Petitioner 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. 
Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. 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. 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
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: 
(]) 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 v. Meissner, 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 determining 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 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
The Petitioner, located in New Jersey, intends to assign the Beneficiary through a mid-vendor to work 
for the end-client, in Ohio, for the duration of the validity period requested. 3 The mid-vendor stated 
in its support letter that "[the mid-vendor] placed [the Beneficiary] as a Business Systems Analyst at 
[the end-client location] beginning on September 11, 2017 and continuing subject to [the end-client's] 
project requirements." However, the record lacks sufficient evidence of the end-client's project 
requirements, and the contractual relationship between the mid-vendor and the end-client. 
The Petitioner provided documents to substantiate the Beneficiary's work assignment including a 
subcontractor agreement (SA) between the Petitioner and the mid-vendor. The agreement specified, 
among other things, that: 
[a]ll services provided by [the Petitioner] must be performed in strict accordance with 
the terms, specifications and requirements contained in this agreement, the Work Order 
and, to the extent applicable to the services provided by [the Petitioner], the [end­
client's] contract with [the mid-vendor] including but not limited to ... [s]creening and 
qualification requirements, all of which shall be deemed incorporated into the Work 
Order and shall be binding upon [the Petitioner]. 
The mid-vendor's work order indicates that the Beneficiary will perform services as a business 
systems analyst from September 2017 - August 2019. This documer stioulates the Beneficiary's 
services are to be provided pursuant to the end client's contract letter.__ ________ _. The 
Petitioner provided a redacted copy of the referenced end-client contract letter which is eight pages in 
length, and reflects the nature of the Beneficiary's placement was pursuant to "staff augmentation" 
agreements between the mid-vendor and the end-client. The contract farther provides that "[the end­
client] may request Services via its standard work order requests, releases, or another form of written 
authorization (a "Release"), substantially similar to the sample attached as Exhibit G to this contract." 
Notably, the section of the contract letter entitled "term and terminations" indicates that the contract 
"shall continue until November 2019 unless terminated by either party pursuant to the termination 
provisions of this contract. Following the Initial Term, the Parties may mutually agree in writing to 
additional two (2) year terms." But the Petitioner redacted the rest of the section and approximately 
three pages of the contract letter thereafter except for a paragraph which discusses the testing and 
selection process for candidates to the "Contract Labor Program," which specifies, among other things 
that, "[the mid-vendor] shall only submit qualified Personnel, and [the end-client] may interview such 
Personnel for [the end-client's] specific assignments." 
The Petitioner also provided another document, which it described as a "purchase order from [the end­
client]." The document entitled "placement record," bears the mid-vendor's letterhead, and does not 
contain language to indicate that it is a work order request or "written authorization" issued by the 
end-client for the Beneficiary's placement. The document identifies the Beneficiary, the Petitioner, 
and the end-client, notes the contracted job function is for a "Business/Systems Analyst/Liaison," and 
provides a partially redacted position description. The "placement record" also indicates that the 
Beneficiary was referred for employment with the end-client as an "Independent/SubContr" in 
3 The Petitioner most recently employed the Beneficiary tln-ough STEM-related post-completion optional practical training. 
and has provided copies of wage statements for his employment with the Petitioner. 8 C.F.R. §§ 274.a.12(c)(3)(i)(C), 
2 l 4.2(f)(10)(ii)(C). 
3 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
September of 2017. However, over three pages of this six page document have been redacted, with 
the exception of some names and dates which we cannot place into context without the redacted text. 
Overall, we conclude there is insufficient evidence of an obligation on the part of the end-client to 
provide work for the Beneficiary, let alone work of specialty occupation caliber for the requested 
validity period. 4 In other words, the evidence of record is currently insufficient to establish the terms 
and conditions of the proffered position at the end-client location. 5 
Moreover, a crucial aspect of this matter is whether the duties of the proffered position are described 
in such a way that we may discern the actual, substantive nature of the position. As noted, the record 
lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate the Beneficiary's assignment as represented by the Petitioner. 
Again, when a beneficiary will perform the work for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the 
client companies' job requirements is critical. Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 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. 
On a fundamental level, we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided consistent and sufficient 
material about the end-client's projects that the Beneficiary will be engaged in. The Petitioner initially 
stated that the Beneficiary "will provide technical services on the project for the [end-client]," without 
further explanation. The Director requested an explanation of how the Beneficiary's specific job 
duties relate to the Petitioner's and the end-client's products and services in a request for evidence 
(RFE). In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided a letter and copies of the Beneficiary's project 
status reports which reflect that he would be assigned to the "Work and Asset Management's project" 
~-------~ , as follows: 
The [ l's] purpose is to develop efficient processes across [the end­
client]. To Standardize Work and implement common tools across the Organization 
which would help in creating the energy company of the future. I I program 
was established to build shared enterprise business processes in support of this 
evolution. 
This multi-year project which is aimed at implementing IBM Maximo Business 
Enterprise Suite across organization and is divided into multiple phases and waves 
which has annual releases in 2019, 2020. 
4 In light of the redacted omissions, we conclude the Petitioner's submission of select sections of the end-client contract 
letter and the mid-vendor's placement record diminishes its evidentiary value, as it deprives us of the remaining portions 
that may reveal information either advantageous or detrimental to the petitioning organization's claims, and therefore, is 
of little probative value. 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. 
5 A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The agency made 
clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-lB program. See, e.g..63 Fed. Reg. 30,419, 30,419-
20 (June 4, 1998). 
4 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
Specific areas of focus include: Work & Asset Management, Reporting & Business 
Intelligence, Finance and Human Resources, Analytics and Big Data, Enterprise 
Content Management, [ and] Customer Information & Billing. 
However, the record does not sufficiently substantiate this project. For example, the Petitioner 
provided a letter from the end-client in response to the Director's RFE, but this letter is insufficient to 
establish the terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's employment at the end-client location. The 
end-client letter states that the Beneficiary is "on assignment" at the end-client location, and includes 
an abbreviated position description of the duties, and requirements. The letter lacks sufficient detail 
to establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed and a necessary correlation between 
the proffered position and a need for a particular level of education, or its equivalent, in a body of 
highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. Specifically, the end-client states that the 
Beneficiary will: 
• Evaluate the internal technical needs of an organization and recommend solutions. 
• Serve as liaisons between internal departments and development team. Define the 
system and functional requirements. 
• Assess available technologies to create development specifications as well as 
detailed test cases. 
• Assist with testing to analyze results. 
• May play a key role in training employees on application, database, and operating 
systems. 
• Conducts highly complex work critical to the organization. 
The end-client indicates that the assignment began in August 2017, and "will continue subject to [the 
end-client's] project needs," but does not specify the duration of the project. In fact, the end-client 
does not mention the ~-------~ Here, the record contains insufficient suoootng 
documentation that identifies the scope, duration, and magnitude of the I, to 
establish the substantive nature of the Beneficiary's role therein. 6 For instance, the Petitioner 
emphasized throughout the proceedings that the Beneficiary will liaise or interact with various end­
client personnel and stakeholder groups, including: 
• Attend Interface analysis and prototyping sessions to help the integration and build 
teams along with business and act as a scribe and help the teams reach consensus. 
• Conduct Requirement gathering sessions using survey, interviews, document 
analysis to gather requirements for further cycle and upcoming waves in the release. 
• Assist integration teams in creating IDD (Integration Design Documents) and 
DMDD (Data Mapping Design Documents). 
• Participation in project meetings and design groups with other team members in 
preparing Risk Analysis reports and project progress reports. 
• Solicit and incorporate customer, stakeholder, and end user feedback and provide 
direction and guidance to team members while serving as a product expert. 
• Collaborate with Business to prioritize the product features for delivery and clearly 
communicate product vision and requirements. 
6 Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
5 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
Though the Petitioner described the job duties of the pos1t10n, the evidence does not show the 
operational structure within this initiative in a manner that would establish the Beneficiary's role. 
While the Director in the RFE requested organization charts that would delineate the Petitioner's and 
the end-client's organization, and staffing hierarchy (including the job titles of the positions that the 
Beneficiary will manage in the proffered position, and the job title of the individual he will report to), 
the Petitioner did not sufficiently address this aspect. In its RFE response, the Petitioner provided 
material which indicates that the Beneficiary reports to its vice president of training and development. 
The organization chart shows various positions, including this vice president's position with a 
downward arrow pointing to a box entitled "employees," which lends little insight into the proffered 
position's placement within the Petitioner's organizational hierarchy. Further, the Petitioner did not 
provide evidence of the end-client's project staffing hierarchy, and sufficient information about what 
the~----~....,.....~actually entails in order to establish the substantive nature of the Beneficiary's 
role as a "business systems analyst" within the context of this endeavor. 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). 
Moreover, as noted, in determining the nature of a proffered position, the critical element is not the 
title of the position, but the duties of the underlying position. As part of our analysis, we review the 
duties of the proffered position to assess the duties and determine whether the described duties 
correspond to the duties and tasks listed in the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Summary 
Report for the occupation designated in the LCA. 7 Here, the Petitioner submitted an LCA for the 
"Management Analysts" occupational category corresponding to the Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) code 13-1111. 8 The U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook 
7 20 C.F.R. § 655. 705(b) requires that USCTS ensure that an LCA supports the H-1 B petition filed on behalfofthe Beneficiary. 
8 The O*NET Summary Report for positions located within the "Management Analysts" occupational category lists the 
following duties: 
• Document findings of study and prepare recommendations for implementation of new systems, 
procedures, or organizational changes. 
• Interview personnel and conduct on-site observation to ascertain unit functions, work performed, and 
methods, equipment, and personnel used. 
• Analyze data gathered and develop solutions or alternative methods of proceeding. 
• Plan study of work problems and procedures, such as organizational change, communications, 
information flow, integrated production methods, inventory control, or cost analysis. 
• Confer with personnel concerned to ensure successful functioning of newly implemented systems or 
procedures. 
• Gather and organize information on problems or procedures. 
• Prepare manuals and train workers in use of new forms, reports, procedures or equipment, according to 
organizational policy. 
• Review forms and reports and confer with management and users about format, distribution, and 
purpose, identifying problems and improvements. 
• Develop and implement records management program for filing, protection, and retrieval ofrecords, and 
assure compliance with program. 
• Design, evaluate, recommend, and approve changes of forms and reports. 
6 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
Handbook (Handbook) states that "Management Analysts" typically: 9 
• Gather and organize information about the problem to be solved or the procedure 
to be improved 
• Interview personnel and conduct onsite observations to determine the methods, 
equipment, and personnel that will be needed 
• Analyze financial and other data, including revenue, expenditure, and employment 
reports 
• Develop solutions or alternative practices 
• Recommend new systems, procedures, or organizational changes 
• Make recommendations to management through presentations or written reports 
• Confer with managers to ensure changes are working 
The Petitioner job descriptions for the proffered position may comport, in part, with the typical tasks 
performed by individuals employed in the "Management Analysts" occupational category. However, 
despite the Petitioner's categorization of the proffered position as a "Management Analyst," the 
petition also contains considerable narrative that references a position that substantially entails system 
design, development, and testing functions. For example, the material in the record indicates that the 
Beneficiary will be "[r]esponsible for validating test results and cross-referencing the testing and 
master test plan in HP ALM with the Traceability Matrix that has already been built," "[ c ]oordinate 
with development teams in for the build evaluation[,] all the Requirements are converted into build 
tickets and given to off-shore for development," "[ e ]valuate and sign off the build and design 
completed by database and data warehouse teams in the presence of Work Stream lead," and "[c]reate 
process flow documents and data flow diagrams in MS Visio depicting the flow of the project." 
Additionally, the Petitioner provided copies of the Beneficiary's project status reports, which indicate 
that he routinely performed duties, such as"[ c ]oordinate with the testing team to get the Test schedules 
using ALM," "[g]ather requirements for security module of the project, using interviews and JAD 
sessions," and "[ d]efect triage for the defects found." While the Petitioner submitted an LCA 
designating the "Management Analysts" occupational category for the proffered position, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently established that these position duties and responsibilities are consistent 
with the occupational category. Here, the Petitioner has not adequately explained how the design, 
development and testing of system software are closely related to the O*NET tasks and the 
Handbook's duties for the "Management Analysts" occupation. 10 The Petitioner must also resolve 
these inconsistencies and ambiguities with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
The O*NET Summary Report for "Management Analysts," may be viewed at https://www.onetonline.org 
/link/summary/13-1111 (last visited Sept. 25, 2019). 
9 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Management Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/management-analysts.htm#tab-2 (last visited Sept. 25, 2019). All of our 
references to the Handbook may be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not maintain that the 
Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. 
10 See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). 
7 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that the "Management Analysts" occupational category 
corresponding to SOC Code 13-1111 is appropriate based on the job duties for the proffered position. 
However, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's submission. Notably, the O*NET Summary Report 
for a "Computer Systems Analysts" occupational category, corresponding to SOC 15-1121, shows 
that someone in this position will, among other things, "[ a ]nalyze [b ]usiness, and other data processing 
problems to implement and improve computer systems. Analyze user requirements, procedures, and 
problems to automate or improve existing systems and review computer system capabilities, 
workflow, and scheduling limitations .... " We observe that many of the software development and 
design, and systems testing duties of the proffered position appear to be closely related to the 
"Computer Systems Analysts" tasks described in the O*NET Summary Report for the occupation. 11 
Based on the material presented in the record of proceedings, we are unable to conclude that the 
proffered position properly corresponds to the "Management Analyst" occupational category 
corresponding to SOC code 13-1111, which raises additional questions regarding the substantive 
nature of the proffered position. 
In general, if the duties of a proffered position involve more than one occupational category (i.e., 
"Management Analysts" and "Computer Systems Analysts"), the DOL's "Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance" states that the employer "should default directly to the relevant 
O*NET-SOC occupational code for the highest paying occupation." 12 At the time the Petitioner's 
LCA was certified, the Level II prevailing wage for "Computer Systems Analysts" in the area of 
intended employment was $75,442 per year, which is significantly higher than the prevailing wage for 
11 For instance, the O*NET Summary report indicate that "Computer Systems Analysts" perform tasks, to include: 
• Test, maintain, and monitor computer programs and systems, including coordinating the installation of 
computer programs and systems. 
• Troubleshoot program and system malfunctions to restore normal functioning. 
• Develop, document and revise system design procedures, test procedures, and quality standards. 
• Analyze information processing or computation needs and plan and design computer systems, using 
techniques such as structured analysis, data modeling and information engineering. 
• Expand or modify system to serve new purposes or improve work flow. 
• Consult with management to ensure agreement on system principles. 
• Use the computer in the analysis and solution of business problems, such as development of integrated 
production and inventory control and cost analysis systems. 
• Confer with clients regarding the nature of the information processing or computation needs a computer 
program is to address. 
• Coordinate and link the computer systems within an organization to increase compatibility and so 
information can be shared. 
• Define the goals of the system and devise flow charts and diagrams describing logical operational steps 
of programs. 
• Provide staff and users with assistance solving computer related problems, such as malfunctions and 
program problems. 
• Prepare cost-benefit and return-on-investment analyses to aid in decisions on system implementation. 
See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-l 121.00. (Last visited Sept. 25, 2019.) 
12 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. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & 
Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009); 
http:/ /flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHCGuidance _Revised_ I I_ 2009 .pdf 
8 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
"Management Analysts" of $61,922 per year. 13 Thus, if the Petitioner's duties for the position fall 
under more than one occupational category, it should have chosen the relevant occupational code for 
the highest paying occupation, which was not "Management Analysts." As the Petitioner indicates 
that it will pay the Beneficiary $62,000, a rate significantly less than the prevailing wage for 
"Computer Systems Analysts," the Petitioner has not established that LCA corresponds to the petition, 
including the occupational category certified therein. 14 
Moreover, the Petitioner has provided conflicting information regarding requirements for the proffered 
position. The Petitioner initially stated in its itinerary that it required "at least a bachelor's degree" for 
entry into the proffered position. The initially provided March 2018 mid-vendor letter specified the 
following job requirements: "Script Test Writing, Executing test scripts, Requirements writing, 
Maximo experience and asset, work management procurement, SAP (ERP testing/implementation 
experience), Automated testing experience, and HP ALM (Application Lifecycle Management) 
Quality Center. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted material that further 
provided a diverse range of requirements for the proffered position, including: 
• The Petitioner's June 2017 Business Systems Analyst job announcement which 
required "a minimum of a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, Computer 
Engineering, Computer Information Systems or a closely related field. The job notice 
further indicated extensive experience requirements, to include "3+ years' system 
implementation required," and "2+ years' Microsoft Dynamics AX" and "3+ years' 
experience [ with various technologies]" preferred. 
• August 2018 mid-vendor and end-client letters, which each specified minimum 
position requirements of "a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Information 
Systems[,] Business with at least 4 years of experience in IT Software Development; 
typically with 8 or more years in dominant project language or related experience." 
• The mid-vendor's partially redacted "placement record," which essentially reiterated 
the job requirements specified in its March 2018 letter. 
• The Petitioner's August 2018 letter, which indicated that "our minimum requirement 
for this position is a Bachelor's Degree or its equivalent in Computer Science or a 
closely related field." 
• An opinion letter from an adjunct professor, University of 
I • H I, in which he opines that "a minimum of a Bachelor's 
Degree in Information Systems, or a related area" is required for the proffered position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner restated I ~s requirements (e.g., a bachelor's degree in information 
systems, or a related area) and asserts "[t]he record of this proceeding does not include anything to 
contradict ~ I position requirements] to sucyessfullv perform the duties [ of the proffered 
position]." However, the Petitioner does not explain wh)l Is position requirements differ from 
the wide array of position requirements that the Petitioner, mid-vendor, and end-client 
contemporaneously put forth, nor does it explain the reasons for the variances in the position requirements 
13 For more information on the prevailing wages, see https://flcdatacenter.com/OESWizardStart.aspx. (Last visited Sep. 25. 
2019). 
14 See Section 212(n)(l) ofthe Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
9 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
within the material in the record.15 The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, Dec. 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. 
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. This 
precludes a conclusion 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 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 ofcriterion 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. 16 
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. 
Cite as Matter of B-, Inc., ID# 4838446 (AAO Sept. 26, 2019) 
15 Notably,! ~ also does not address the variances between the minimum requirements for the position as stipulated 
by the Petitioner, the end-client, and the mid-vendor relative to his own conclusions regarding the position requirements. 
Therefore, we findl l's opinion letter lends little probative value to the matter here. Matter of Caron Int'!, 19 T&N 
Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not required to accept or may give less weight to an advisory opinion when 
it is "not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable."). For the sake of brevity, we will not address 
other deficiencies within the professor's analyses of the proffered position. 
16 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 fiuiher discuss the Petitioner's assertions on appeal 
regarding the criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
10