dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 2, 2025 In Re: 35663546 
Appeal of California Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "IT department manager" under the 
H-lB 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-lB program allows a U.S. 
employer to file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 California Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
(petition), concluding that the record did not establish that the offered position qualified as a specialty 
occupation. Within that determination, the Director not only addressed the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4), but they also found shortcomings relating to the definition of a 
specialty occupation, and whether the Petitioner demonstrated the substantive nature of the position. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 l&N 
Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 
26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
A. Labor Condition Application 
Before filing a petition for H-lB classification, the regulation requires petit10ners to obtain 
certification from the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) that the organization has filed an ETA Form 
9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) in the occupational 
specialty in which its foreign national personnel will be employed. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(l). 
The purpose of DOL's LCA wage requirement is "to protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate any 
economic incentive or advantage in hiring temporary foreign workers." See Labor Condition 
Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Nonimmigrants on H-lB Visas in Specialty 
Occupations and as Fashion Models; Labor Certification Process for Permanent Employment of 
Aliens in the United States, 65 Fed. Reg. 80,110, 80, 110-11 (proposed Dec. 20, 2000) (to be codified 
at 20 C.F.R. pts. 655-56). See also Aleutian Cap. Partners, LLC v. Scalia, 975 F.3d 220,231 (2d Cir. 
2020) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 655.0(a)(l) and finding that a primary goal of U.S. nonimmigrant foreign 
worker programs like the H-1 B Program is to ensure that "the employment of the foreign worker in 
the job opportunity will not adversely affect the wages or working conditions of similarly employed 
U.S. workers."). 
The LCA also serves to protect H-lB workers from wage abuses. A petitioner submits the LCA to 
DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB 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). See also Broadgate, Inc. v. Su, No. 22-1944, 2024 WL 5178391, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 
20, 2024); Venkatraman v. REI Sys., Inc., 417 F.3d 418,422 & n.3 (4th Cir. 2005); Patel v. Boghra, 
369 F. App'x 722, 723 (7th Cir. 2010); Michal Vojtisek-Lom & Adm 'r Wage & Hour Div. v. Clean 
Air Tech. Int'l, Inc., 2009 WL 2371236, at *8 (Dep't of Labor Admin. Rev. Bd. July 30, 2009). 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(B)(2) provides that a petitioner must state 
that it will comply with the terms of the LCA. While DOL certifies the LCA, USCIS "determines 
whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, whether the 
occupation named in the labor condition application is a specialty occupation ... , and whether the 
qualifications of the nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements for H-lB visa classification." 
20 C.F.R. § 655. 705(b ). See also Matter ofSimeio Solutions, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 546 n.6 (AAO 2015). 
USCIS may consider DOL regulations when adjudicating H-lB petitions. See Int'l Internship 
Programs v. Napolitano, 853 F. Supp. 2d 86, 98 (D.D.C. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Int'l Internship 
Program v. Napolitano, 718 F.3d 986 (D.C. Cir. 2013); ITServe All., Inc. v. United States Dep't of 
Homeland Sec., 71 F.4th 1028, 1037-38 (D.C. Cir. 2023); United States v. Narang, No. 19-4850, 2021 
WL 3484683, at *I (4th Cir. Aug. 9, 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1360 (2022) (finding that USCIS 
adjudicators evaluate whether the employment proposed in an H-1 B petition will conform to the wage 
and location specifications in the LCA); Parzenn Partners, LLC v. Baran, No. 19-CV-11515-ADB, 
2020 WL 5803143, at *8-9 (D. Mass. Sept. 29, 2020) (finding that USCIS operates within its authority 
when it either considers or evaluates DOL's wage level regulation when determining if an LCA 
corresponds with and supports an H-lB petition). 
In a similar vein, USCIS possesses the authority to evaluate whether the offered position's duties are 
in accordance with the occupational classification on the LCA, and if not, to determine under which 
occupational titles the responsibilities correspond. See GCCG Inc v. Holder, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1161, 
1167-68 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (in which the court agreed with USCIS that a large portion of the 
beneficiary's duties were most similar to those found within the Bookkeeping, Accounting, and 
Auditing Clerks occupation, rather than within the Accountants Standard Occupational 
Classificational (SOC) code.) Effectively, this reiterates the USCIS' ability to determine whether the 
LCA corresponds with and supports the petition. 
"In construing a statute or regulation, we begin by inspecting its language for plain meaning." Sullivan 
v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786, 790 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Meeks v. West, 216 F.3d 1363, 1366 
(Fed.Cir.2000)). "[W]e attempt to give full effect to all words contained within that statute or 
2 
regulation, thereby rendering superfluous as little of the statutory or regulatory language as possible." 
Sullivan, 815 F.3d at 790 (quoting Glover v. West, 185 F.3d 1328, 1332 (Fed.Cir.1999)). The most 
basic canon of statutory-as well as regulatory-construction consists of interpreting a law or rule by 
examining the literal and plain language. See Carbon Fuel Co. v. USX Corp., 100 F.3d 1124, 1133 
( 4th Cir. 1996). The inquiry ends with the plain language as well, unless the language is ambiguous. 
United States v. Pressley, 359 F.3d 347, 349 (4th Cir. 2004). 
Here, the plain language of the regulation is dispositive: USCIS is authorized to determine the 
corollary nature of the offered position's elements as represented in an LCA when compared with 
those same elements as represented on the Form T-129, as well as the Petitioner's actual position 
requirements. And to clarify, USCIS does not purport to exercise any authority over the LCA. Instead, 
we are ensuring that the claims made on the LCA sufficiently align to those made within the H-lB 
petition. 
Furthermore, the Act prescribes DOL's limited role in reviewing LCAs stating that "[u]nless the 
[DOL] Secretary finds that the application is incomplete or obviously inaccurate, the Secretary shall 
provide the certification .... " Section 212(n)(l)(G)(ii) of the Act. USCIS precedent also states: 
DOL reviews LCAs "for completeness and obvious inaccuracies" and will certify the 
LCA absent a determination that the application is incomplete or obviously inaccurate. 
Section 212(n)(l)(G)(ii) of the Act. In contrast, USCIS must determine whether the 
attestations and content of an LCA correspond to and support the H-1 B visa petition. 
Simeio Solutions, 26 I&N Dec. at 546 n.6. It is unclear how USCIS is to carry out its responsibilities 
to determine whether the LCA corresponds with and supports the H-1 B petition without performing 
such a review. To illustrate, by simply submitting the LCA to DOL without also obtaining a prevailing 
wage determination, a petitioner has only received DOL's certification that the form is complete and 
does not contain obvious inaccuracies. Id. 1 In fact, DOL "is not generally permitted to investigate 
the veracity of the employer's attestations on the LCA prior to certification." Aleutian Cap. Partners, 
LLC, 975 F.3d at 225-26 (quoting Cyberworld Enter. Techs., Inc. v. Napolitano, 602 F.3d 189, 193 
(3d Cir. 2010) ). 
Further, when DOL certifies an LCA, it does not perform any meritorious review of an employer's 
claims to ensure the information is true. DOL's Office of Inspector General, 06-21-001-03-321, 
Overview of Vulnerabilities and Challenges in Foreign Labor Certification Programs 11 (2020) 
(describing the DOL Employment and Training Administration's role as "simply rubber-stamping 
during the application certification process"). In other words, employers do not receive an evaluative 
determination from DOL on whether the LCA's content and the specifics were appropriate and 
accurate. 
In order to determine whether the "attestations and content" (e.g., the SOC code and the wage level) 
as represented on the LCA corresponds with the information pertaining to the offered position as 
represented on the Form I-129, we follow DOL's guidance, which provides a five-step process for 
1 Employers my obtain a prevailing wage determination by taking the additional step of submitting Form ETA-9141 
(Application for Prevailing Wage Determination) to DOL's National Prevailing Wage Center. 
3 
determining the appropriate SOC code and wage level. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training 
Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. 
Nov. 2009) (DOL guidance), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC_ 
Guidance_Revised_l 1_2009.pdf. 
An employer "reaffirms its acceptance of all of the attestation obligations by submitting the LCA to 
[USCrS] in support of the Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I-129, for an H-lB 
nonimmigrant." 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(c)(l). When comparing the SOC code or the wage level 
indicated on the LCA to the claims associated with the petition, USCIS does not purport to supplant 
DOL's responsibility with respect to wage determinations. There may be some overlap in 
considerations, but USCIS' responsibility at its stage of adjudication is to ensure that the content of 
the DOL-certified LCA "corresponds with" the content of the H-lB petition. 
Additionally, it is important for USCIS to ensure the employer has selected the SOC code on the LCA 
that most closely matches the offered position for reasons that affect H-lB statutory and regulatory 
requirements. First, the wrong SOC code can direct users to evaluate an inapplicable occupational 
title or occupation. It is the occupation itself that we evaluate to decide if it requires a "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." Section 214(i)(l) of the Act. Therefore, an incorrect SOC code could mean we 
would not be able to properly evaluate whether a petitioner has satisfied the statute's definition of a 
specialty occupation. 
Second, we also cannot provide a proper analysis under two H-lB regulatory requirements. Those 
requirements fall under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J) and (2). 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J) requires a petitioner to demonstrate that a baccalaureate or higher degree-or 
its equivalent-is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. Because 
education requirements may differ markedly from one occupational classification to the next, the 
incorrect SOC code ( e.g., occupational classification) can skew the analysis. Also, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) requires that the degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations. Because the degree requirement that is considered common to 
the industry for one occupation may also be distinct in comparison to others, USCIS must ensure the 
SOC code specified on the LCA is the one that most closely matches the position in the petition. 
It is also important to ensure the correct wage level is specified on the LCA because even if an 
employer designates the correct SOC code and satisfies the H-lB related requirements, if the wage 
level is lower than the position's requirements warrant, users still cannot approve the H-1 B petition 
because employers are required to compensate H-lB workers at 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 2 l 2(n )( l) of 
the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a); Broadgate, Inc. v. Su, No. 22-1944, 2024 WL 5178391, at *1. Stated 
differently, were USCIS to allow an employer to compensate an H-lB worker at a wage level that is 
lower than the position's requirements warrant, it would not be compensating that individual at the 
necessary prevailing wage, nor the actual wage it pays to similarly situated employees. 
4 
In summary, when filing an LCA and an H-1 B petition, a petitioner subjects itself to two authorities: 
(1) to DOL through the certification process, or through a prevailing wage determination, and (2) to 
USCIS by way of our authority to ensure that the LCA corresponds with and supports the petition. 
B. Specialty Occupation 
Section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonirnrnigrant as a foreign national "who is 
corning 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. § 1184(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 offered position must meet one of four 
criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 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 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"). 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 pe1form services in a specialty occupation ... " (emphasis added). 
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. § l 03.2(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. ANALYSIS 
Even though the majority of the Director's analysis in their denial decision addressed whether the 
Petitioner satisfied one of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4), we begin 
addressing several overarching issues that preclude this petition's approval. First, the LCA does not 
correspond to and support the petition. Second, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the offered 
position satisfies the statutory and regulatory standards for a specialty occupation. And finally, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the substantive nature of the work the Beneficiary would 
perform. 
A The Petitioner Did Not File the LCA Containing the Correct SOC Code or Wage Rate 
The Petitioner initially provided the position's description with 11 bullet points and provided 
additional details relating to each duty in response to the Director's request for evidence. For the sake 
5 
of brevity, we will not quote the duties; however, we note that we have closely reviewed and 
considered them. 
After reviewing the record, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
under the H-lB program. Specifically, we observe at least two issues that preclude this petition's 
approval: (1) the Petitioner did not utilize the correct SOC code on the LCA, which prevents USCIS 
from providing a purposeful analysis of whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation; and 
(2) the use of this incorrect SOC code could result in the Petitioner paying the Beneficiary a lower 
than required wage. Based on these issues, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the 
LCA corresponds with and supports the petition. 
Without an LCA that properly corresponds with and supports the pet1t10n, we cannot make a 
determination on the specialty-occupation question based on the current record. Specifically, we 
cannot provide an accurate specialty-occupation analysis for the offered position under the SOC code 
15-1299.09 corresponding to the occupational title Information Technology Project Managers if the 
duties the Petitioner provided more closely relate to a different SOC code. Additionally, the use of an 
incorrect SOC code on the LCA may result in an employer paying a lower than required wage. 
We offer several examples for this reasoning. First, the statutory and regulatory definitions of a 
specialty occupation focus on the broader occupation as a whole, and the use of an incorrect 
occupational code may result in an erroneous decision, or one that does not properly assess the actual 
nature of the occupation in which a beneficiary would engage. Second, the education requirements 
we consider under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) may differ markedly from one 
occupational classification to the next. Likewise, under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), a degree 
requirement considered common to the industry for one occupation may also be distinct in comparison 
to others. It would not be a valuable use of USCIS resources to analyze the position requirements 
under an incorrect SOC code. These two factors alone, that hinder USCIS' ability to provide a salient 
analysis, preclude this petition's approval. 
A third concern relates to paying a foreign national the required wage, such that employing them does 
not adversely impact U.S. workers' wages or working conditions. Aleutian Cap. Partners, 975 F.3d 
at 231 ( quoting 20 C.F.R. § 655.0). Two elements comprise paying the correct wage. The first factor 
relates to a petitioner designating the correct SOC code, while the second pertains to selecting an 
appropriate prevailing wage level. Relating to the first factor, an employer must review its job 
requirements "and determine the appropriate occupational classification," and if an "employer's job 
opportunity has worker requirements described in a combination of [the Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET)] occupations," it should select "the higher paying occupation." See the DOL 
guidance. Turning to the second factor, the DOL guidance provides a five-step process for 
determining the appropriate wage level. An employer compares its position requirements to these five 
steps evaluating: (1) the correct SOC code; (2) the required experience; (3) the required education; 
(4) special skills or other requirements; and ( 5) required supervisory duties. If an employer's position 
requirements exceed those described in O*NET for an occupational title, it may necessitate an increase 
in the wage level. 
The O*NET provides the following definition for Information Technology Project Managers: 
6 
Plan, initiate, and manage information technology (IT) projects. Lead and guide the 
work of technical staff Serve as liaison between business and technical aspects of 
projects. Plan project stages and assess business implications for each stage. Monitor 
progress to assure deadlines, standards, and cost targets are met. 
The primary focus here is on managing information technology projects and personnel. Alternatively 
the O*NET provides the following definition for Computer and Information Systems Managers under 
the 11-3021 SOC code: "Plan, direct, or coordinate activities in such fields as electronic data 
processing, information systems, systems analysis, and computer programming." The focus here is 
involves overseeing and managing information technology strategies, systems, and infrastructure in 
alignment with organizational goals. This SOC code reflects both the technical and managerial aspects 
of the Petitioner's offered position, including: 
• Developing information technology strategies aligned with business objectives; 
• Managing information technology infrastructure; 
• Overseeing cybersecurity measures and compliance; 
• Implementing new technologies to enhance business capabilities; and 
• Providing leadership and guidance on information technology-related matters. 
It appears the Petitioner recognized Computer and Information Systems Managers as the correct SOC 
code because they provided the DOL's Occupational Outlook Handbook profile for that occupation 
in response to the Director's request for evidence and cited to that printout to support their eligibility 
claims. According to the DOL guidance: "If the employer's job opportunity has worker requirements 
described in a combination ofO*NET occupations, the [choice of which SOC code should be selected] 
should default directly to the relevant O*NET/SOC occupational code for the highest paying 
occupation." See also Lawson Landscaping Design and Construction, LLC, 2022-PWD-00001, at 4 
(May 12, 2022); Maestro Soccer, LLC, 2018-PWD-00001, at 3 (Dec. 21, 2017); About Women 
OB/GYN, PC, 2017-PWD-00002, at 3-4 (Jan. 27, 2017). 
But selecting the occupation with the higher paying wage is not what the Petitioner did here. The SOC 
code the Petitioner designated on the LCA at the relevant location and at the selected Level I wage 
rate corresponds with an annual wage of $51,480. But the more salient Computer and Information 
Systems Managers SOC code at a Level I wage rate calls for an annual salary of $83,283. So the 
scenario is one in which the Petitioner proposes to underpay the Beneficiary by $31,803. 
But that is not the end of the story. Irrespective of the correct SOC code, considering the offered 
position's responsibilities, it appears its Level I wage rate designation under any occupation was 
incorrect. It appears the Petitioner has devised distinct skills or duties that are outside of the norm for 
a single occupation. In addition to including managerial functions, the duties also involve technical 
hands-on work ( e.g., configuring workstations, providing support to end users, managing access cards, 
configure and deploy internet protocol phones to facilitate communication within the organization and 
with customers). These functions more appropriately fall under the SOC codes for Computer User 
Support Specialists ( 15-1232), and Network and Computer Systems Administrators ( 15-1244). These 
are not all the examples we identified, but it is unnecessary that we detail every responsibility that are 
outside of the norm for a single occupation. 
7 
The DOL guidance states that "if it is determined that the requirements are indicators of skills that are 
beyond those of an entry level worker, consider whether a point should be entered on the worksheet 
in the Wage Level Column." The Office of Foreign Labor Certification's (OFLC) Frequently Asked 
Questions and Answers under question nine provide additional guidance associated with skills that are 
atypical to an occupation. The OFLC website states: 
The [National Prevailing Wage Center] uses the SOC description in O*NET to identify 
the skills normally associated with an occupation. Any required skills in addition to 
those listed in O*NET are considered atypical for the occupation and the analyst looks 
to see if they match another occupation. In either case, a point is added to the worksheet 
in Appendix C of the Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance -
Nonagricultural Immigration Program (Revised November 2009) that will raise the 
wage level by one level either because it contains a combination of occupations or 
because it contains job requirements not normal to the occupation. 
For additional information, see OFLC Frequently Asked Questions and Answers, available at 
https://foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/#q!513 (Feb. 6, 2013). To put this in plain language, because the 
Petitioner included job duties requiring skills that were not listed in one SOC code, they should have 
increased the position's wages to a Level II. Combining our earlier determination that the correct SOC 
code should have been Computer and Information Systems Managers, along with a Level II wage rate 
should have resulted in an annual wage that more than doubled what the Petitioner indicated it would 
pay the Beneficiary, with the apparent correct minimum wage of $106,142. 
This result overrides the Petitioner's claims surrounding the specialty occupation issue because the 
requirement that the LCA corresponds with and supports the petition is a threshold issue that prevents 
us from providing an appropriate specialty occupation analysis. 
B. Specialty Occupation Definition Determination 
The Director also found the 
record to be inadequate to demonstrate other umbrella requirements stating 
that "[t]he record lacks evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position meets the definition of a 
specialty occupation." The specialty occupation definition is an independent ground the Petitioner 
must address on appeal to receive a positive outcome to their case because the failure to meet this 
overarching statutory and regulatory mandate precludes the approval of any H-1 B petition. On appeal, 
the Petitioner does not contest the Director's adverse determination on this issue. They have therefore 
abandoned or waived that issue here, and in any future filing based on this particular petition. Matter 
Khan, 28 I&N Dec. 850, 852 n.4 (BIA 2024) (finding a topic is waived that was an issue before the 
lower adjudicative body but the filing party does not raise it on appeal). 
As a result, even if the Petitioner overcame the issues it addresses within the appeal brief ( eligibility 
under the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)), it still would not demonstrate that the petition 
should be approved. When an appellant fails to properly challenge one of the independent grounds 
upon which the Director based their overall determination, the filing party has abandoned any 
challenge of that ground, and it follows that the Director's adverse determination will be affirmed. 
Where a case warrants a denial regardless of other eligibility considerations, it is unnecessary that we 
address those other considerations. Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 332 (2022) ( citing INS v. 
8 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (finding agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision)); see also Matter ofM-A-S-, 24 I&N 
Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009) (generally finding that a waived ground of ineligibility may form the 
sole basis for a dismissed appeal). The result is it is unnecessary that we address whether the Petitioner 
has satisfied any of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
C. Position's Substantive Nature Determination 
Even if we set aside the above issues, the Director also questioned whether the Petitioner established 
the substantive nature of the position stating: 
Although you submitted a detailed job description and an expert opinion letter from a 
college professor; these documents do not define the terms and conditions and describe 
the projects and services to be performed by the beneficiary, nor were supplemented 
by documentation identifying specific projects in which the duties would be applied, 
describing the particular components of those projects that are so complex or unique as 
to satisfy the criterion for a specialty occupation, and explaining why those components 
were so complex or unique that their performance necessitates a person with at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
As such, the absence of valid projects, or any other evidence you believe would support 
your claim of a specialty occupation, the evidence do not establish the work to be 
completed; that the duties to be performed are those of an Information Technology 
Project Manager position, and, thus, a specialty occupation position; and that the 
beneficiary will engage in services in a specialty occupation .... 
The Petitioner also did not address this determination from the Director's decision meaning it is also 
waived and may serve as the sole basis to dismiss the appeal. M-A-S-, 24 T&N Dec. at 767 n.2. 
Besides that procedural shortcoming, we add that the Petitioner described itself as a transportation, 
management, and leasing business for semi-trucks and trailers, equipment sales and acquisitions, and 
expert consulting services that includes driver recruitment, trip settlements, and federal regulation 
compliance. They further provide cross-docking services, secure parking solutions, temperature 
controlled cold storage including mobile refrigerator units, and warehouse management in three states. 
In total, the Petitioner employs 24 personnel. The Petitioner did not offer a breakdown of the positions 
in its organization to demonstrate what types of jobs the IT department manager would support, how 
many IT personnel they would manage, or that they even employ any other IT-related personnel. This 
raises additional questions relating to whether the Petitioner had a bona fide job available for the 
Beneficiary when it filed the petition. 
To summarize, several issues exist with this petition filing and each of them could serve as a 
stand-alone basis to preclude its approval. 
9 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.