dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-N- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 25,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "information 
technology specialist" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B 
program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that 
requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as 
a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, revoked the approval of the petition. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erroneously revoked the 
approval of the petition and submits additional evidence. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. REVOCATION FRAMEWORK 
In general, the authority to revoke approval of an H-1B petition is found at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(11), 
which states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Revocation of approval of petition. 
(i) General. 
(A) The Petitioner shall immediately notify the Service of any 
changes in the terms and conditions of employment of a 
beneficiary which may affect eligibility under section 
101(a)(15)(H) of the Act ahd paragraph (h) of this section. An 
amended petition on Form I-129 should be filed when the 
petitioner continues to employ the Beneficiary .... 
Matter of A-N- Inc. 
(B) The Director may revoke a petition at any time, even after 
expiration of the petition. 
(iii) Revocation on notice-
(A) Grounds for revocation. The Director shall send to the 
petitioner a notice of intent to revoke the petition in relevant 
part if he or she finds that: 
(1) The Beneficiary is no longer employed by the Petitioner 
in the capacity specified in the petition .... ; or 
(2) The statement of facts contained in the petition ... was 
not true and correct, inaccurate, fraudulent, or 
misrepresented a material fact; or 
(3) The Petitioner violated terms and conditions of the 
approved petition; or 
( 4) The Petitioner violated· requirements of section 
101(a)(15)(H) of the Act or paragraph (h) of this 
section; or 
(5) The approval of the petition violated [paragraph] (h) of 
this section or involved gross error. 
(B) Notice and decision. The notice of intent to revoke shall 
contain a detailed statement of the grounds for the revocation 
and the time period allowed for the Petitioner's rebuttal. The 
petitioner may submit evidence in rebuttal within 30 days of 
receipt of the notice. The Director shall consider all relevant 
evidence presented in deciding whether to revoke the petition 
in whole or in part .... 
We find that the content of the Director's notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) approval of the petition 
comported with the regulatory notice requirements, as it provided a detailed statement that conveyed 
the proposed grounds for revocation encompassed by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(ll )(iii)(A), and that it also allotted the Petitioner the required time for the submission of 
evidence in rebuttal that is specified in the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)(ll )(iii)(B). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-N- Inc. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Form I-129 
The Petitioner filed the H-1B petition on September 27, 2013. On the Form I-129, Petition for a 
Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner stated that the basis for requesting H-1B classification was 
"continuation of previously approved employment without change with the same employer." The 
instructions to the Form I-129, specify that a petitioner should check this box if it is applying to 
continue the employment of the beneficiary in the same nonimmigrant classification the beneficiary 
currently holds and there has been no change in the employment. 1 
In the Form 1-129 petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary had been working in California 
but would now be working from its office located at in 
Illinois beginning on October 1, 2013. Thus, the Petitioner's selection on the Form I-129 indicating 
that there was no change to the employment was inaccurate as the Beneficiary's work site changed 
from California to Illinois. An inaccurate statement anywhere on the Form I -129 or in the evidence 
submitted in connection with the petition mandates its denial. See 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(IO)(ii); see 
also id. § 103.2(b)(1). 
B. Terms and Conditions of the Labor Condition Application 
On the Labor Condition 
Application (LCA) submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner 
confirmed that the Beneficiary's sole place of employment would be at 
Illinois, and that this place of employment is in : The Petitioner also 
indicated on the LCA that the proffered position falls under the occupational category "Computer 
Operators" which corresponds to Standard Occupational Category code 43-9011, at a Level I (entry) 
wage level. 
The Director approved the petition on October 1, 2013. Subsequently, on December 12, 2013, and 
December 18, 2013, USCIS conducted two site visits at the address provided by the 
Petitioner in the petition and for which the LCA was certified. During the site visits, USCIS 
discovered that: the office center responsible for that address did not have any record .of the 
Petitioner as a tenant; the Petitioning organization did not exist at that location; and the Beneficiary 
was not working at that location. However, during a telephonic interview on December 13, 2013, 
the Beneficiary stated that he reported to the Petitioner's address on a daily basis for a few 
hours and spent the remainder of his workday off-site. 
1 Every benefit request or other document submitted to DHS must be executed and filed in accordance with the form 
instructions and such instructions are incorporated into the regulations requiring its submission. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l). 
2 Part G of the LCA states the following regarding the listed place of employment: "Important Note: It is important for 
the employer to define the place of intended employment with as much geographic specificity as possible[.] The place of 
employment address listed below must be a physical location and cannot be a P.O. Box." 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-N- Inc. 
The Director issued a NOIR. In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner submitted a letter from 
in which he stated that the Beneficiary initially started working at the Petitioner's 
office, but the Petitioner moved to another location in Illinois in November 2013. 
further stated that the Petitioner moved again to its current location in Illinois 
in January 2015. stated that the Beneficiary works out of this Illinois 
location "during normal business hours (except for the days when performing data collection in the 
field)." 
We note several inconsistencies in the information provided by the Petitioner regarding the 
Beneficiary's work location. 
First, in the petition, the Petitioner provided conflicting information 
regarding whether the Beneficiary would work off-site. While the Petitioner stated on page 4, Part 5 
of the Form I-129 that the Beneficiary would not work off-site, it also indicated that the Beneficiary 
would work off-site by answering "yes" to the questions listed in Part D of page 11 of the Form 
I:-129. The Petitioner has not provided an explanation for this inconsistency. It is incumbent upon 
the petitioner to' resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. at 591. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless 
the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Id. at 591-92. 
Moreover, as discussed, an inaccurate statement anywhere on the Form I-129 or in the evidence 
submitted in connection with the petition mandates its denial. See 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)(l O)(ii); see 
also id. § 1 03 .2(b )(1 ). ' 
Further, statements regarding the Petitioner's Illinois locations and the timeframes during 
which the Petitioner purportedly occupied a particular Illinois address are in conflict with the 
information contained in the two documents entitled "Labor Condition Application Posting 
Information," which were submitted with the NOIR response. 
More specifically, claims that the Petitioner moved from the Illinois location to 
Illinois in November 2013. The Petitioner submitted a document entitled Labor 
Condition Application Posting Information" which is signed by The notice indicates that 
it was posted from November 1, 2013 to November 15, 2013 for a position located at ' 
IL ' Notably, the Petitioner was required to provide this 
notice of the filing of the LCA on or within 30 days before the date the LCA was submitted to the 
U.S. Department of Labor for certification. 20 C.F.R. § 655.734. The notice must include the 
location(s) at which the H-1 B nonimmigrant will be employed. ld. When a petitioner places an H­
I B worker at a work site not contemplated at the time of filing the application but which is in the 
area of intended employment provided on the LCA, the petitioner is required to post notices at the 
work site on or before the date the individual begins work. Id. The Petitioner has not provided an 
explanation as to why it would post a notice of position availability for a position located at " 
IL if the work site had moved to Illinois. 
Further the record contains a second documen.t entitled "Labor Condition Application Posting 
Information" which is signed by,. COO." According to this document, the Petitioner 
sought an H-IB nonimmigrant worker for the work location at '' 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-N- Inc. 
IL and this notice was posted for the period "from 2/1115 to 2115115." This 
information is also inconsistent with the Petitioner's assertion that the Petitioner had relocated its 
Illinois branch office to Illinois in January 2015. The Petitioner 
provides no explanation as to why it would post a notice of position availability at a location it 
claims that it had not occupied for over a year. 
We further note that public records indicate that the Petitioner's claimed branch office at 
Illinois is a residential single home registered to and The 
Petitioner provided insufficient evidence regarding its business operations out of this residential 
address. For example, the record of proceedings does not contain probative evidence indicating the 
total number of employees the Petitioner is permitted to employ at this location per local zoning laws 
and regulations. 
Moreover, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary had worked out of its Illinois 
location from November 2013 until January 2015. However, the Petitioner provided no specifics as 
to the actual address of its location. Nor did it provide an itinerary demonstrating the 
time spent at the location. Therefore, the record is devoid of sufficient probative 
evidence with regard to the Beneficiary's work location for a period of over one year. 
Upon review of the entire record of proceedings, we find that the evidence of record does not contain 
sufficient probative evidence regarding the Petitioner's business locations3 in Illinois and the time 
the Beneficiary spent or would spend at each on- and off-site work locations to overcome the 
Director's first basis for revoking the approval of the petition. 
C. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
1. Law 
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. 
3 We further note that the Petitioner's claimed primary place of business located at 
California is also ~residential single family home. It is unclear why the Petitioner indicated a suite number for 
this address. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-N- 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: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
· position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. 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). 
2. Proffered Position 
In the H -1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an "information 
technology specialist." In the itinerary it submitted with the initial filing of the petition, the 
Petitioner stated the following regarding the Beneficiary's duties and the percentage of time he 
would spend on each duty (verbatim): 
Task Details % ofTime 
Spent 
KPI (Key Testing performance of growing list ofKPis (Each 30% 
Performance KPI represents as performance indicator for the 
Indicator) Wireless Network Technology) 
Implementation: 
Testing comparison and Implementation work using 30% 
Reporting PYTHON, Shell Scripting, My SQL and calculate the 
System parameters before going to the production release 
This is a new project that will get in to implementation 5% 
phase in October 2012. He is involved in providing 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-N- Inc. 
input to Product Requirements for this new project. 
Operational Generate QA Report at the end of the day and 20% 
Work maintain Database System and subversion repository 
Monitoring Tool Development, Design and Updates involved in the 15% 
monitoring tool using PYTHON depend on 
requirement 
However, the Petitioner provided two different versions of the job duties in its NOIR response. 
While providing the same duties stated above in the second itinerary it submitted for the work 
location at Illinois, the Petitioner also provided the 
following version of duties in a letter signed by (verbatim): 
• Working with wireless mobile advance technology and services, E.g. VoL TE (Voice 
over LTE). 
• Testing performance of growing list of KPis (Each KPI represents as 
performance indicator for the Wireless Network Technology) in VoL TE network. 
• And personally go to the field to verify the VOL TE KPis with the reported KPis in 
report system. 
• Testing comparison and Implementation work using Python script, Shell Scripting, 
MyS~ ) 
• Calculate the parameters before going to the production release 
• Generate QA Report at the end of the day and maintain Database System and 
subversion repository . 
• Support Linux System Administration team and Android-JAVA Programming team 
• Debugging and analyze the defects 
related to Mobile Application at Client 
Server side 
both by using Agile Techniques 
• Troubleshoot with the field team related issue on 
• Develop and des~gn the Monitoring tool for drive testing. 
• Testing, analyses and track the bugs until not isolates the defects 
• To build the for production & Debug release 
• Perform tests on new binary release to verify product 
before to goes to production environment. 
• Perform field test to reproduce the scenario to resolve defects with 
developers . 
• To create presentation for special test depends on costumer request 
• Create the python script in Linux environment to Automate QA work and this will 
saves time to test the data on server side 
• Determines quality improvement parameters by identifying statistical methods 
relevant to Troubleshooting processes. 
• Regression testing performance in the field by going personally at the cell ID 
location to verify the reliability of the before it release to the field. 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-N- Inc. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted another version of the duties of the proffered position as follows 
(verbatim): 
Task Details %Time 
Spent 
• Working with wireless mobile advance technology 65% 
Software Product and services at the software product development 
Development field. Software product performance of 
growing list of KPis (each KPI represents as 
performance indicator for the Wireless Network 
Technology) in wireless network. 
• Working with software development product to 
research/invent the wireless technology parameters in 
order to provide efficient and reliable solution to the 
client. 
• Coding in Java android programming to 
implement/Design/configuration/Integration the 
wireless software product depends on 
requirement of the client including choice of 
application architecture and framework. 
• Wireless Software development and refinement of 
throw-away simulations or prototypes of confirm 
requirements. 
• QXDM/QMDL/QPST Network software tool use to 
implement and design the Software product 
depends on client requirements. 
. • Research parameters on Network protocols (RTP, 
TCP, and UDP) to design and implement solution on 
Software product. 
• Working on to management for 10% 
Software Product developing multiple wireless apps in order to 
Management collaborating with teams and documentation of the 
confidential wireless software design, 
procedure, Configuration and set-up. 
• Working on management tool for the bug 
tracking, issue tracking and project management 
function; to create, share, and discuss your 
documents, ideas, minutes, and projects. 
• Debugging and analyze the defects related to Mobile 
Application at Client and Server side both by using 
Agile Techniques 
• Releasing the software product by testing Java codes 10% 
Software Product in the field and documentation of the release product. 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-N- Inc. 
Release • Participation in software release and post-release 
activities, including support for product launch 
evangelism (e.g. developing 
demonstrations and/or 
samples) and competitive analysis for subsequent 
product build/release cycles 
• Regression testing performance in the field by 
going personally at the cell ID location to verifY the 
reliability of the which coded in Java before it 
· release to the field. 
• Determines quality improvement parameters by 
. identifYing statistical methods relevant to 
Troubleshooting processes 
• Invent and create the monitoring tool for wireless 10% 
' Monitoring Tool software product which has a bunch of advance 
and Linux Server Python programming code which is needed 
expertise/specialty 
in coding as well as wireless 
technology. 
• Create the python script in Linux environment to 
automate the manual job work in order to save time. 
• Support Linux System Administration team to 
configure/implement the set-up on Linux server. 
I 
• V erizy KPis measurements to the reporting system 5% 
Reporting after 
implementation/Design of the 
System software product. 
• V erizy daily comprehensive reports, Detail 
Comparison, CDF Plotters, Event Based Reporting 
View, Network Type Reports and Call Setup 
reporting. 
In a letter dated September 16, 2013, stated that "[t]his product development requires 
hiring professionals with graduate or undergraduate degrees in computer science or computer 
engineering and should also possess knowledge about the basics of wireless communications." In 
response to the NOIR, the Petitioner stated that the position requires a master's degree in an 
engineering discipline. 
3. Analysis -" 
The duties provided on appeal differ significantly from the versions of the duties provided previously in 
the proceedings. Notably, while the duties provided previously primarily involve testing of software 
products, the duties provided on appeal mainly involve software product development. The Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary would spend 65% of his time in duties involving product development. 
Furthermore, on appeal, the Petitioner changed the percentage of time the Beneficiary would spend on 
reporting system from 30% to 5%; monitoring tool from 15% to 1 0%; and reporting duties from 20% to 
9 
Matter of A-N- Inc. 
5%. The Petitioner also added categories such as software product management and software product 
release- each comprising 10% of the duties. Moreover, the Petitioner's has modified the requirements 
for the position. 
On appeal, a petitioner cannot offer a new position to the Beneficiary, or materially change its level 
of authority within the organizational hierarchy, the associated job responsibilities, or the 
requirements of the position. The Petitioner must establish that the position offered to the 
beneficiary when the petition was filed merits classification for the benefit sought. Matter of 
Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg' Comm'r 1978). A petitioner may not make 
material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS 
requirements. See In re Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
While the Petitioner provides different versions of the duties and requirements of the proffered position, 
it provides no explanation regarding the inconsistencies in the duties in these various versions. The 
Petitioner is obligated to clarify the inconsistent and conflicting information by independent and 
objective evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. Furthermore, evidence that the Petitioner 
creates after USCIS points out the deficiencies and inconsistencies in the petition will not be 
considered independent and objective evidence. Necessarily, independent and objective evidence 
would be evidence that is contemporaneous with the event to be proven and existent at the time of 
the director's notice. · 
Furthermore, considering the totality of the duty description provided by the Petitioner, we find that the 
evidence of record does not establish the depth, complexity, or level of specialization, or substantive 
aspects of the matters upon which the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will engage. While we 
acknowledge that the Petitioner has provided rather lengthy descriptions of the duties, we note that the 
duties of the proffered position, and the position itself, are described in relatively generalized and 
abstract terms that do not relate substantial details about either the position or its constituent duties. For 
example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be "[t]esting performance of growing list of 
K.Pis." However, the Petitioner provides little insight into the Beneficiary's actual tasks, nor does it 
sufficiently identify specific skills required to perform such tasks. The abstract nature of the proposed 
duties is further illustrated by the statement that the Beneficiary will "[g]enerate QA Report at the end 
of the day and maintain Database System and subversion repository." Again, this statement does not 
adequately explain the methods the Beneficiary would use to gather data or in generating reports. 
Nor does it provide sufficient insight into what it considers "maintain[ing]" a database system to 
involve. Similarly, the Petitioner did not explain the tasks that the Beneficiary would perform in 
"providing input to Product Requirements" for the project. Even when the Petitioner expanded on 
the duty description, it continued to use such terms such as "[w]orking with," "[c]alculate," 
"[ s ]upport," and "[g]enerate" that reveal very little, if any, insight into the actual tasks the 
Beneficiary would perform on a day-to-day basis. 
The overall responsibilities for the proffered position do not contain sufficient information regarding 
the particular work, and associated educational requirements, into which the duties would manifest 
themselves in their day-to-day performance within the Petitioner's business operations. This type of 
10 
Matter of A-N- Inc. 
description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that may be performed within an 
occupational category, but it does not adequately convey the substantive work that the Beneficiary 
will perform within the Petitioner's business operations and, thus, cannot be relied upon by the 
Petitioner when discussing the duties attached to specific employment. In establishing a position as 
a specialty occupation, a petitioner must describe the specific duties and responsibilities to be 
performed by a beneficiary in the context of the Petitioner's business demonstrate that a legitimate 
need for an employee exists, and substantiate that it has H-1B caliber work for the Beneficiary for 
the period of employment requested in the petition. 
In the NOIR, the Director requested specific information regarding the position description and the 
skills required to perform the job duties. However, the Petitioner has provided inconsistent duties 
and requirements throughout the proceedings. Without a meaningful job description, the record 
lacks evidence sufficiently concrete and informative to demonstrate that the proffered position 
requires a specialty occupation's level of knowledge in a specific specialty. The tasks as described 
do not communicate (1) the actual work that the Beneficiary would perform, (2) the complexity, 
uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks, and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need 
for a particular level education of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
The Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary, which therefore precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 
8 C.P.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 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 
4 We further note that the Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable 
wage levels). The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by the DOL provides a description of the 
wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary 
to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that the Beneficiary will be expected to 
perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will be closely supervised and his 
work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive specific instructions on required tasks 
and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, 
Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download 
/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf 
The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines any claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies 
11 
Matter of A-N- Inc. 
Moreover, as discussed ab~ve, the Petitioner provided inconsistent and inaccurate information in this 
proceeding. An inaccurate statement anywhere on the Form I-129 or in the evidence submitted in 
connection with the petition mandates its denial. See 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)(l O)(ii); see also 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). 
) 
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
When considered both separately and in the aggregate, we conclude that the evidence submitted by 
the Petitioner in response to the NOIR and on appeal does not overcome the Director's decision 
revoking approval ofthe petition. Consequently we affirm the Director's October 6, 2015, decision 
revoking the petition's approval pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(11)(iii)(A). 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 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. 5 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-N- Inc., ID# 17308 (AAO July 25, 2016) 
as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( 1) of the Act 
5 As the petition will remain revoked, we need not address the additional issues we observe in the record of proceedings 
including, for example, that the Petitioner did not attest that it would be liable for the Beneficiary's reasonable costs of 
return transportation abroad ifthe Beneficiary is dismissed before the end of his authorized admission. 214(c)(5) ofthe 
Act; 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(E). 
12