dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-S-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 14,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting and software development company, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "Computer Systems Engineer" under the H-lB 
nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The 
Director subsequently granted the Petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider, and again denied the 
petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. ISSUE 
The issue before us is whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in accordance 
with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.1 Beyond the decision of the Director, we will 
also address whether the Petitioner has established that it will have a valid employer-employee 
relationship with the Beneficiary and whether the Petitioner complied with the itinerary requirement at 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B). 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
For an H-1B petition to be granted, the Petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to establish that it 
will employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. To meet its burden of proof in this 
regard, the Petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the Beneficiary meets the 
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015); see 
also 5 U.S.C. § 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would 
have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 
1002 n.9 (2d Cir. 1989). We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Matter of S-S-, Inc. 
(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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which ((1)] requires theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human endeavor 
including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, 
social sciences, medicine and health, education, business specialties, accounting, law, 
theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree or 
higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the 
occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together with 
section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory language 
must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute as a 
whole. ·See K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction of 
language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Fed Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter ofW-F-, 21 
I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) should logically 
be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and regulatory definition 
of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the necessary and sufficient 
conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in particular positions 
meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or regulatory definition. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc. 
See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that must be met in 
accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty 
occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the term "degree" in the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in 
a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered 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"). Applying this standard, 
USCIS regularly approves H-lB petitions for qualified individuals who are to be employed as 
engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college professors, and other such 
occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly .been able to establish a minimum 
entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent 
the types of specialty occupations that Congress contemplated when it created the H-lB visa category. 
To detetmine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply rely 
on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of the 
petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must examine the ultimate 
employment of the individual, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title of 
the position or an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation, as 
required by the Act. 
We note that, as recognized by the court in Defensor, supra, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the Petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. See 
Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-88. The court held that the former Immigration and 
Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the statute and regulations as requiring the Petitioner 
to produce evidence 
that a proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the 
requirements imposed by the entities using the Beneficiary's services. Id. at 384. Such evidence must 
be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and educational level of highly specialized knowledge in 
a specific discipline that is necessary to perform that particular work. 
B. Proffered Position 
On the Form I-129, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would work off-site at in 
New Jersey. In the letter of support, the Petitioner described itself as "a full-service provider 
of Information Technology consulting services." The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary would 
perform the following job duties in the proffered position (verbatim): 
3 
·--·--····----- --· 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc. 
~ Participate in requirements gathering and compiled them into design document 
~ Analyze the Unit test framework and design the framework to meet the current 
requirements 
~ Analyzing compilation warnings on various platforms 
~ Writing and reviewing test cases for Application Framework components 
~ Involve in database design, normalization, indexing in SQL Server 2008 
~ Design and Development of Test Plans, Component testing 
~ Involved in debugging and solving the build issues 
~ Writing and reviewing test cases for all the modules of current working components 
of program 
The Petitioner submitted a letter, dated August 25, 2014, from which confirmed 
that it has selected the Beneficiary "to render development and support services on this project." The 
letter further confirmed that the Beneficiary's services "are to be fulfilled at the office located at 
NJ and the project is expected to exceed more than a year." The letter 
provided a list of job duties similar to the list provided by the Petitioner in its letter of support. 
On appeal, and for the first time, the Petitioner clarifies that the Beneficiary will be working on the 
project for its client, which "is expected to last until August 
2016, with possible extension." 
The Petitioner submitted a second letter from dated June 27, 2015, certifying 
that the Beneficiary 
has been selected "to render development and support services for multiple in­
house development projects" at its premises. The letter stated that the Beneficiary's services will be 
required until August 2016. The letter provided the same list of job duties as in its August 25, 2014, 
letter. 
C. Analysis 
The primary issue is whether the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it will 
employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. 
As a preliminary matter, we find that the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the 
requirements for the proffered position. For instance, the Petitioner stated on motion that the proffered 
position requires "a bachelor's degree or its equivalent Quantitative discipline in Computer Science, 
Management Information Systems, Engineering or a related field." However, further in the same letter, 
the Petitioner stated that "a Bachelor's degree in Management Information Systems, Computer Science, 
Engineering, Business or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the position 
of Computer Systems Engineer .... " In addition, the Petitioner provided a letter from the Chairman of 
dated August 25, 2014, which states that a "minimum [of a] bachelor's degree 
in Computer Science, MIS or related field" is required. No explanation for the variances was provided 
by the Petitioner. "[I]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent 
objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or 
4 
Matter of S-S-, Inc. 
reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the Petitioner submits competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. !d. at 591-92. 
Moreover, we find that the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in computer science, management 
information systems, engineering and/or business is a sufficient minimum requirement for entry into the 
proffered position is inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of 
a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a case, the 
required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there must be a 
close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, 
however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as philosophy and 
engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position such that the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" 
is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis 
added). 
In other words, while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," we 
do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty 
occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than one closely related 
specialty. See section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes even 
seemingly disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of record establishes how each 
acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position. 
Here, the Petitioner states that a bachelor's degree in computer science, management information 
systems, engineering and/or business is acceptable. However, these fields cover numerous and various 
specialties. The issue here is that it is not readily apparent that business is closely related to 
engineering or computer science or that the field of business is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position proffered in this matter. Further, the Petitioner's claim that 
a bachelor's degree in business is a sufficient minimum requirement for entry into the proffered 
position is inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. A 
petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study 
that relates directly and closely to the position in question. Since there must be a close correlation 
between the required specialized studies and the position, the requirement of a degree with a 
generalized title, such as business, without further specification, does not establish the position as a 
specialty occupation.2 Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 
2 A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. For example, an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration with a 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc. 
1988). Accordingly, as the evidence of record does not establish a standard, minimum requirement of 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the particular position, 
it does not support the proffered position as being a specialty occupation. 
On motion, the Petitioner submitted an opinion letter prepared by 
lists the duties of the proffered position as described by the Petitioner in its letter 
dated October 22, 2014, and concludes that the proffered position is a specialty occupation that requires 
a bachelor's degree in computer science, management information systems, engineering, or a related 
quantitative discipline. 
In the letter, stated that he "carefully read the description of [the Petitioner], provided to 
[him]" and "consulted the company's website (www.[the Petitioner].com) for further information about 
the company." However, there is no evidence 
that has visited the Petitioner's business, 
observed the Petitioner's employees, interviewed them about the nature of their work, or documented 
the knowledge that they apply on the job . He does not demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge of the 
Petitioner's specific business operations or how the duties of the position would actually be performed 
in the context of the Petitioner's business enterprise. Moreover, does not indicate whether he 
considered the business operations of the particular end-client in this matter, and the Beneficiary' s 
actual duties for the end-client as described by the end-client. 
Furthermore, it does not appear that is aware that the Petitioner designated the proffered 
position as a Level II position in the Labor Condition Application. The U.S. Department of Labor's 
wage-level guidance specifies that a Level II designation is reserved for positions involving only 
moderately complex tasks requiring limited judgment. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training 
Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance , Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. 
Nov. 2009), available at 
http:/ /www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009 .pdf. We consider 
this a significant omission, as it appears that would have found this information relevant for 
his opinion letter. Moreover, without this information, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
possessed the requisite information necessary to adequately assess the nature of the Petitioner's 
position and appropriately determine similar positions 
based upon job duties and responsibilities. 
concentration in a specific field, or a bachelor 's or higher degree in business administration combined with relevant 
education, training , and/or experience may, in certain instances, qualify the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation. In either case, it must be demonstrated that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojf, 484 F.3d 
at 147. 
It is also important to note that a position may not qualify as a specialty occupation based solely on either a preference 
for certain qualifications for the position or the claimed requirements of a petitioner. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 
384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000) . Instead , the record must establ ish that the performance of the duties of the proffered position 
requires both the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty , or its equivalent , as the minimum for entry into the 
occupation . See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation "). 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc. 
We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of 
Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord 
with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less 
weight to that evidence. !d. As a reasonable exercise of our discretion , we find that the advisory 
opinion letter possesses little probative value for any criterion of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
Furthermore, we find that the record of proceeding in this case does not contain sufficient information 
regarding the specific job duties to be performed by the Beneficiary while assigned to the 
' project. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner submitted several documents in support of its petition, including an 
offer of employment letter between itself and the Beneficiary, a Services Agreement and a Purchase 
Order between itself and and two letters from the Petitioner's client. The 
evidence does not establish , however, the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary. There is a lack of documentation regarding the claimed project and the Beneficiary's 
specific role in the project. Although the Petitioner's client, states that the 
Beneficiary will work at its offices in New Jersey for the duration of the petition, the Services 
Agreement between the Petitioner and dated September 18, 2013, references 
project work that could be performed on 
behalf of an unidentified end-client. Here, the Petitioner does 
not establish that the petition was filed for non-speculative work for the Beneficiary that existed as of 
the time of the petition 'sfiling. There is insufficient documentary evidence in the record corroborating 
the availability of work for the Beneficiary for the requested period of employment and, consequently , 
what the Beneficiary would do and how this would impact the circumstances of her relationship with 
the Petitioner. 
For instance, upon review of the offer of employment letter, dated March 7, 2014, we note that it does 
not mention the project. The letter states that the Petitioner "will provide a written 
. description of the project assigned to the Employee, a copy of which is attached to this Agreement as 
Exhibit A and incorporated herein." However, no such attachment is appended to the offer letter. In 
addition, the letter states, "When and if the Employee is assigned to perform services for a Client 
Company or End-Client Company of [the Petitioner], the work of the Employee shall, at all times, be 
set by and supervised by [the Petitioner]." According to the offer letter, the Beneficiary may be placed 
at various locations and assigned to various projects and, thus, not necess'!rily in New Jersey on the 
project as indicated by the Petitioner. 
Further, upon review, we find that the Services Agreement and the Purchase Order lack the necessary 
level of detail regarding the Beneficiary's claimed assignment. For example , these documents do not 
indicate that the Beneficiary will work on the project. In addition, although the 
Purchase Order lists the proffered position, it specifies 
the duration of the assignment as "12 months 
with possible extension." Thus, the Purchase Order indicates that the Beneficiary's assignment will end 
prior to the end of the requested H-1B validity period? A petition must be filed for non-speculative 
June 27, 2015 letter, submitted on appeal, vaguely states that the Beneficiary 's services "will 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc. 
work for the Beneficiary, for the entire period requested, that existed as of the time of the petition's 
filing. USCIS regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit it is 
seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(l). A visa petition may not be approved 
based on speculation of future eligibility or after the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under a 
new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248. 
The letters from too, are insufficient, as they do not describe the particular 
duties of the Beneficiary in detail. They list the Beneficiary's services in general and vague terms that 
do not appear to be specifically tied to the ' '' project. In fact, none of the letters 
mention the ' ' project and only one letter uses the job title of computer systems 
engineer. In addition, letter dated June 27, 2015, states that the Beneficiary 
will "render development and support services for multiple in-house development projects" which are 
"developed for and ultimately benefit clients." Thus, it appears that the 
Beneficiary will be assigned to various projects for different end-clients, as was also indicated in the 
earlier referenced Services Agreement dated September 18, 2013. 
Based on the lack of detailed information and documentation regarding the ' ' project 
and the specific duties the Beneficiary will perform, we cannot find that the Petitioner has met its 
burden of proof in establishing that the Beneficiary will be. employed to exclusively perform services on 
this project, as claimed, which precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines: (1) the 
normal minimum educational requirement for the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; 
(2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review for a 
common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity or 
uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second 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 4.4 · 
Accordingly, as the evidence of record does not satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied. 
be required for a period until August 20 16." However, without additional explanation, including why this statement 
differs from the information found in the Purchase Order, letter is insufficient to corroborate the 
Petitioner's claims . 
4 The Petitioner attested in tbe Labor Condition Application that the proffered position falls under the "Computer 
Occupations , All Other" occupational category , which is an occupational category that is not covered in detail in the U.S. 
Department of Labor 's Occupational Outlook Handbook . 
8 
Matter of S-S-, Inc. 
III. BEYOND THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR 
A. Employer-Employee 
Beyond the decision of the Director, we find that the Petitioner did not establish that it will have a valid 
employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary. Specifically, the Petitioner has not established 
that it will have "an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as 
indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such 
employee." 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). The record of proceeding lacks sufficient documentation 
evidencing what exactly the Beneficiary would do for the period of time requested or where exactly and 
for whom the Beneficiary would be providing services and, given this specific lack of evidence, the 
Petitioner does not establish who has or will have actual control over the Beneficiary's work or duties, 
or the condition and scope of the Beneficiary's services. In other words, the Petitioner does not 
establish whether it has made a bona fide offer of employment to the Beneficiary based on the evidence 
of record or that the Petitioner, or any other company which it may represent, will have and maintain 
the requisite employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary for the duration of the requested 
employment period. See 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "United States employer" and 
requiring the Petitioner to engage the Beneficiary to work such that it will have and maintain an 
employer-employee relationship with respect to the sponsored H-lB nonimmigrant worker). Again, 
there is insufficient evidence detailing where the Beneficiary will work, the specific projects to be 
performed by the Beneficiary, or for which company the Beneficiary will ultimately perform these 
services covering the duration of the petition. Therefore, the petition must be denied for this additional 
reason. 
B. Itinerary Requirement 
We also find that the Petitioner did not comply with the itinerary requirement at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) states, in pertinent part: 
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be 
performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary 
with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as 
provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location 
on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph. 
The itinerary language at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), with its use of the mandatory "must" and its 
inclusion in the subsection "Filing of petitions," establishes that the itinerary as there defmed is a 
material and necessary document for an H-lB petition involving employment at multiple locations, and 
that such a petition may not be approved for any employment period for which there is not submitted at 
least the employment dates and locations. Here, there is a lack of documentary evidence sufficient to 
corroborate the claim that the Beneficiary would be serving as a computer systems engineer at 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc. 
facility for the period sought in the petition. Although the Petitioner requested the 
Beneficiary be granted H-1 B classification until August 31, 2016, the Petitioner did not substantiate the 
proposed employment at for the duration of the period requested. Given the 
indications in the record that the Beneficiary would work at multiple locations during the requested 
period of employment, the Petitioner was required to submit an itinerary. The Petitioner did not provide 
this initial required evidence when it filed Form 1-129 in this matter; therefore, the petition must also be 
denied on this additional basis. 
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
We may deny an application or petition that does not comply with the technical requirements of the 
law even if the Director does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enters., Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001); see also Matter 
ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. at 542. · 
Moreover, when we deny a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it shows that we abused our discretion with respect to all of the enumerated 
grounds. See Spencer Enters., Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1037; see also BDPCS, Inc. 
v. FCC, 351 F.3d 1177, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ("When an agency offers multiple grounds for a 
decision, we will affirm the agency so long as any one of the grounds is valid, unless it is 
demonstrated that the agency would not have acted on that basis if the alternative grounds were 
unavailable."). 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. 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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013) (citing Matter of 
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493, 495 (BIA 1966)). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-S- , Inc., ID# 15196 (AAO Jan. 14, 2016) 
10