dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8397510 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 22, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to 
temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both: (a) the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's 
or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into 
the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not sufficiently establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
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 nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires : 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
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 : 
( I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree" to mean not just 
any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 
proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing 
"a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and 
responsibilities of a particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
As recognized in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, it is necessary for the end-client to provide sufficient 
information regarding the proposed job duties to be performed at its location(s) in order to properly 
ascertain the minimum educational requirements necessary to perform those duties. In other words, 
as the beneficiaries in that case would provide services to the end-client hospitals and not to the 
petitioning staffing company, the petitioner-provided job duties and alleged requirements to perform 
those duties were insufficient for a specialty occupation determination. See id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record does not sufficiently establish that the proffered position reqmres an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 1 
The Petitioner seeks to assign the Beneficiary as an "SAP integration support engineer" [SISE] 
through an intermediary vendor to an end-client for the duration of the validity period requested. The 
claimed contractual chain is as follows: Petitioner ➔ A- (mid-vendor) ➔ H- ( end-client). The 
Petitioner submitted a labor condition application (LCA)2 for the end-client location for the "Computer 
Occupations, All Other" occupational category corresponding to the Standard Occupational 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
2 A petitioner submits the LCA to U.S. Department of Labor (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). 
2 
Classification (SOC) code 15-1199, with a level II wage. In response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE), it clarified that the proffered position corresponds to the occupational sub-category 
"Computer Systems Engineers" corresponding to SOC code 15-1199.02. 
As a preliminary matter, we observe that the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information 
regarding the minimum requirements for the proffered position. 
Record Degree Requirement Experience Requirement 
Petitioner's Bachelor's degree in computer science, MIS, 
Mar. 2019 CIS, engineering, a directly related analytic or Work experience in the field. 
Letter scientific discipline, or the equivalent thereof. 
Mid-vendor's Master's degree or equivalent work Equivalent work experience in 
Letter expenence. related occupation. 
End-client's Referenced the Beneficiary's academic Skills and expertise required to 
Mar. 2019 credentials as qualifying but did not specify perform the position duties: SAP 
Letter any particular degree requirement. PI/PO and Java. 
Petitioner's Bachelor's degree in computer science, CIS, 
Aug. 2019 MIS, engineering or related field. NIA 
Letter 
End-client's Bachelor's degree in a directly related field, Aug. 2019 NIA 
Letter or equivalent. 
Petitioner's Master's degree in computer science, 
Sep.2019 computer engineering, electrical engineering, NIA 
Appeal Brief or a related field. 
The Petitioner has not consistently stated the minimum educational requirement for this position. For 
instance, it initially specified bachelor's degrees in a diverse array of analytical, information 
technology, the sciences, or engineering categories as required for the position, indicating that prior 
work experience in the field was also needed. Later, in response to the Director's RFE, it narrowed 
the type of acceptable degrees, and omitted mention of any work experience requirements. On appeal, 
the Petitioner farther changed its requirements to the obtainment of a master's degree in the degree 
categories articulated in the RFE response. The mid-vendor's letter stated differing requirements, 
contending that an unspecified master's degree or an undefined level of equivalent work experience 
would suffice. The end-client initially did not specify any particular degree requirement, but 
referenced the Beneficiary's academic credentials as "qualifying," and indicated that "skills and 
expertise [in] SAP PI/PO and Java" were needed to perform the duties of the position. Later, the end­
client required a bachelor's degree "in a directly related field, or equivalent" for the position. 
As explained above, we interpret the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a 
degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. The mid-vendor's stated 
minimum requirements, for example - that possession of a general master's degree or work experience 
- alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact a specialty occupation. The Petitioner does 
not explain why the mid-vendor and end-client present position requirements that differ from other 
3 
position requirements that it put forth, nor does it explain the reasons for its own variances in position 
requirements within the record. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies and ambiguities in 
the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
The Petitioner has also submits "sample expert opinion letters obtained by [the Petitioner]," asserting 
"[t]hese letters analyze[] requirements for the [SISE] positions," and affirm that the Petitioner's 
requirements put forth in the RFE response are "appropriate preparation for [the proffered position]." 
We have reviewed this material and conclude that the Petitioner's reliance on the sample opinion 
letters is misplaced. First, the opinion letters seek to evaluate positions that facially appear to span a 
wide spectrum of information technology and analytical positions, and do not focus on the proffered 
SISE position. For instance, the letter writers discuss the attributes of positions bearing many different 
job titles, such as "programmer analyst, business intelligence analyst, software developer, database 
developer, technical architect, and clinical application developer." Second, the nature of the job duties 
and apparent level of responsibility for these positions described in the opinion letters differ in the 
positions discussed therein. The Petitioner has not established how these diverse positions are parallel 
to the instant position. Third, the letter writers collectively assert that this wide array of positions 
require bachelor's degrees in fields that encompass degrees in computer science, information 
technology, business, math, finance, economics, the sciences, and engineering, rather than a degree in 
a specific specialty. Fourth, the opinion letters are not relevant to the proffered position as the letter 
writers do not analyze the actual position being offered to the Beneficiary in the petition, nor do they 
provide clarification for the previously discussed inconsistent position requirements put forth by the 
Petitioner in this petition, which differ from their own collective conclusions. Id. For the reasons 
discussed, we determine the sample opinion letters lend little probative value to the matter here. 
Matter o_f Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not required to accept or 
may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other information or is in 
any way questionable."). For the sake of brevity, we will not address other deficiencies within the 
professors' analyses of the proffered position. 
In summary, we conclude that the inconsistencies in the record erode the Petitioner's ability to 
demonstrate the substantive nature of the proffered position. Unresolved material inconsistencies may 
lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the 
requested immigration benefit. 3 The record contains numerous and material inconsistencies relative 
to the Petitioner's minimum requirements for entry into the proffered position. We therefore conclude 
that the documentation submitted in this regard to establish eligibility for the classification sought 
lacks probative value and overall credibility. 4 For these reasons, the petition may not be approved. 5 
3 Matter of Ho, Dec. at 591-92. 
4 Mattero(Chawathe, 25 T&NDec. 369,376 (AAO 2010) (citing MatterofE-M-, 20 T&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989)). 
5 The Petitioner also provides copies of H-1 B petition approval notices for other Beneficiaries to show that USCTS has 
approved petitions that it had previously filed on behalf of other employees. We are not required to approve applications 
or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. 
See Matter of Church Scientology Int "I. 19 T&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988); see also Sussex Eng'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 
825 F .2d 1084, 1090 ( 6th Cir. 1987). Furthe1more, we are not be bound to follow a contradictory decision of a service 
center. La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *3 (E.D. La. 2000), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 
(5th Cir. 2001). 
4 
The Petitioner has also presented evidence that is inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the 
Beneficiary's proposed end-client work assignment certified in the LCA. The Petitioner asserts that the 
Beneficiary will be assigned to the end-client through contractual arrangements and provided an LCA 
indicating that the Beneficiary would be solely employed on a full-time basis at the end-client's work 
location. In contrast, it initially indicated in its March 2019 letter that: 
The [position] offered to [the Beneficiary] is a part-time regular position with [the 
Petitioner]. As such, the [B]eneficiary's employment is not dependent upon a 
contractual agreement(s) with our firm or with any of our clients firm. Thus, the 
[B]eneficiary will work as a part-time employee of the company with regular pay from 
the company whether he is on a project or not or in between projects. 
The Petitioner further emphasized in its response to the Director's RFE: 
The length and time required to accomplish the typical development project similar to [the 
end-client project] is at least 30 to 36 months, and alternatively coupled with our ample 
engagements that are ongoing ensure that our need for the Beneficiary's services will 
continue for the requested period of time. The [B]eneficiary will be involved in designing, 
developing, and implementing applications and sophisticated systems based on user needs 
and will always be rendering services within her specialty occupation for the entire 
duration of her H-lB status. 
Here, the Petitioner initially indicates that it will employ the Beneficiary on a part-time basis, instead of 
full-time as certified in the LCA. Later, it implies that it will likely employ the Beneficiary at locations 
different than the work location certified in the LCA when he is "in between projects." In the same 
document it provides assurances that the Beneficiary "will always be rendering services within her 
specialty occupation for the entire duration of her H-lB status." These inconsistencies raise questions 
regarding whether the LCA corresponds with the petition. 6 Moreover, the Petitioner also mistakenly 
and repeatedly references the Beneficiary in the feminine pronoun case in its response to the Director's 
RFE, and within its appeal brief. The record also lacks an explanation for this inconsistency. Thus, 
we must also question the accuracy of the documents and whether the information provided is correctly 
attributed to this particular Beneficiary and position. 7 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner seeks to deploy the Beneficiary to an end-client's location to work 
as an SISE through an intermediary vendor pursuant to contractual agreements. The Petitioner provided 
contractual documentation to illustrate this relationship. However, it has not established definitive, non­
speculative, specialty occupation employment for the Beneficiary. 
To evidence the contractual relationships the Petitioner presented its agreement with the mid-vendor, 
which indicates among other things, that the "[the mid-vendor] has obtained a contract to provide 
services of programmers and consultants to its client [] as listed in the various addenda for a particular 
6 See Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). While DOL certifies the LCA, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCTS) determines whether the LCA's content corresponds with the H-1 B petition. See 20 C.F.R. 
§ 655.705(b) ("DHS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition .... "). 
See also Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 2015). 
7 Matter of Ho, Dec. at 591-92. 
5 
project, the expected duration of which is also listed in the addenda." The agreement further states 
"[ the Petitioner] shall provide services as listed in the addenda or as shall be required to client or [ mid­
vendor ]," and the Petitioner "shall be paid in accordance with each addendum for approved hours by 
client representative, as defined by the addendum." The mid-vendor's addendum to this agreement 
identifies the end-client's work location and indicates that the Beneficiary will be employed there as 
an "SAP PI (Programmer Analyst)," commencing on March 2019 through December 2019, a period 
of time that elapsed two months after the petition's requested employment start date. 
The end-client agreement with the mid-vendor provides that the mid-vendor's services to the end­
client will be "set forth and described in [a] service order." The end-client's service order reflects that 
it was executed by the contracting parties in May 2019, and lists the mid-vendor as the "consultant," 
but does not mention the Petitioner. The description of work therein shows that the services to be 
provided are "Operational Support on PRO interfaces which includes work with external vendor 
partners, Develop interfaces using SAP Middleware Technologies, [and] Participate in design 
discussions and performance improvement efforts." Further "deliverables" identified under the 
service order are "Daily Interface Run Checks, Fix any Production Issues, Monitor and update IT 
Requests for Interfaces, [and] New interface development as needed." However, the service order 
does not identify or discuss the specific end-client information technology projects which require the 
mid-vendor's services, nor does it identify the positions needed to fulfill the service requirements, 
such as the Beneficiary's proposed position. Notably, the end-client service order project 
commencement and completion dates are redacted. We determine the Petitioner's submission of this 
redacted work order documents diminishes its evidentiary value, as it deprives us of the actual 
commencement date and duration of the service work to be performed therein, and therefore, is of 
little probative value. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
While the end-client agreement confirms that the end-client and the mid-vendor may share a 
contractual relationship, the underlying service order does not substantiate the nature of the service 
work agreement between the end-client and the mid-vendor sufficient to establish critical details about 
the Beneficiary's proposed employment that the parties may have agreed to. The information provided 
indicates that the mid-vendor has contracted with the end-client to perform information technology 
service work. However, we cannot determine the date and duration of the over-arching end-client 
project to which the Beneficiary is to be assigned. The Director denied the petition, in part, as the 
petition lacked sufficient probative evidence to substantiate the Beneficiary's on-going end-client 
work assignment. We agree. The lack of complete contractual documentation specific to the 
Beneficiary's employment is important because, in this case, the existence of the proffered position 
appears dependent entirely upon the willingness of the end-client to provide it. Here, the record lacks 
sufficient evidence of any legal obligation on the part of the end-client to provide the position 
described by the Petitioner in this petition. 8 
While relevant, the letters from the end-client and the mid-vendor are not sufficient to fill this gap, as 
they do not sufficiently describe the contractual relationship between the parties such that we can 
ascertain the nature and terms of that relationship and determine whether there is, in fact, a legal 
obligation on the part of the end-client to provide the position the Petitioner describes. For instance, 
8 Cf Galaxy Sofiware Solutions, Inc. v. USC1S, No. 18-12617, 2019 WL 2296824, at *7 (E.D. Mich. May 30, 2019) 
( describing the petitioner's "fail[ ure] to provide all of the contracts governing the relationships between the corporate 
entities in the chain" as a "material gap"). 
6 
the end-client's letters state that "[the Beneficiary] is working as an [SISE] as a contractor," noting 
that "[the Petitioner] has a contract with [the mid-vendor], which has a contract with [the end-client]." 
The mid-vendor's letter indicates "[the Beneficiary] is currently contracted by our company to [the 
end-client]." Again, the record lacks evidence of any legal obligation on the part of the end-client to 
provide the position to the Beneficiary as described by the Petitioner in this petition, let alone 
determine its substantive nature to ascertain whether it is a specialty occupation. 
In summary, if we cannot determine whether the proffered position as described will actually exist, 
then we cannot ascertain its substantive nature so as to determine whether it is a specialty occupation. 9 
Nonetheless, even if we were to set these foundational deficiencies aside, we would still be unable to 
ascertain the substantive nature of the proffered position. 
A crucial aspect of this matter is whether the duties of the proffered position are described in such a 
way that we may discern the actual, substantive nature of the position. As noted, the record lacks 
sufficient evidence to substantiate the Beneficiary's assignment as represented by the Petitioner. 
Again, when a beneficiary will perform the work for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the 
client companies' job requirements is critical. Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. When determining 
whether a position is a specialty occupation, we look at the nature of the business offering the 
employment and the description of the specific duties of the position as it relates to the performance 
of those duties within the context of that particular employer's business operations. 
We conclude the Petitioner has not presented evidence sufficient to demonstrate what the end-client's 
project actually entails that will require the Beneficiary's services. As discussed, the contractual 
documentation presented does not identify what the end-client's project is, the staffing needed to complete 
the project, or the date and duration of the project. The letters submitted in support of the petition also 
provide little information regarding the Beneficiary's end-client project assignment. For instance, the 
end-client's letters state that the Beneficiary will be "assisting with the SAP integration projects," and 
note "[t]his is an ongoing project with extensions possible as require to complete the project duties." The 
mid-vendor's letter indicates "[t]he project is ongoing and anticipated need for [the Beneficiary's] 
services is throughout the project, is expected to last until December 31, 2019 with possibility of extension 
for additional 2 years." On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it has sufficiently documented the end­
client's project. We disagree. 
The Petitioner has not provided evidence that describes the end-client's project in a manner that 
illustrates the project's staffing hierarchy and the relative roles, responsibilities, and duties of the 
information technology staff that will be devoted to the project, including those for the Beneficiary's 
work assignment. The Petitioner provides its own listings of job duties that Beneficiary will perform 
in the proffered position. 1° For instance, the Petitioner submitted a bulleted list of 24 job duties for 
the position, and states: 
9 The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-lB program. See, e.g., 63 Fed. 
Reg. 30419, 30419 - 30420 (June 4, 1998). 
10 We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted information for the job duties, which, for the sake of brevity, have not 
been included herein. However, this material has been closely reviewed and considered, as with all evidence in the record. 
For instance, the Petitioner discussed the Beneficiary's academic coursework for the purpose of correlating the need for 
the Beneficiary's education with the associated job duties of the position. However, we are required to follow long-
7 
The [SISE] utilizes these skills on a continual basis in the performance of his/her job 
duties. It is not possible for use to provide an actual and correct breakdown of the exact 
time the [Beneficiary] will be spending in performing the job duties. However, the 
[Beneficiary] will spend approximately 80 to 90% of his/her time in performing the 
listed job duties depending on the project he/she is working. 
The listed duties are utilized for different purposes in the design and development of 
the computer software systems. The [SISE] performs these job duties for the design 
and development of applications and systems based on user needs. Each of the listed 
duties has distinct purposes and is sued in conjunction with one another to properly 
design and develop software applications for their clients. 
The Petitioner's statements do not convey sufficient pertinent details as to the actual work and level 
of responsibility involved in these tasks. Rather, the Petitioner's job duty listing appears to identify 
generic job tasks that are typically performed by individuals working within information technology 
development projects for a hypothetical client. Consequently, they do not give context to the specific 
tasks that the Beneficiary will perform within the end-client's business operations. The Director 
specifically requested such evidence in her RFE, but the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to 
show how the Beneficiary's specific job duties relate to the end-client's products and services. 11 
We must review the actual duties the Beneficiary will be expected to perform to ascertain whether 
those duties require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as required 
for classification as a specialty occupation. To accomplish that task in this matter, we review the 
duties in conjunction with the specific project(s) to which the Beneficiary will be assigned. To allow 
otherwise, results in generic descriptions of duties that, while they may appear (in some instances) to 
comprise the duties of a specialty occupation, are not related to any actual services the Beneficiary is 
expected to provide. 
The generally stated duties provided by the Petitioner without the context of a specific end-client project 
work and the Beneficiary's actual role in the project adds little to our understanding of the substantive 
nature of the Beneficiary's duties. While the Petitioner's job descriptions identify information 
technology job functions, without more, they do not support the Petitioner's assertions regarding the 
relative complexity and specialization of the Beneficiary's day-to-day duties. For instance, the 
Petitioner's job descriptions identify tasks, such as "[ c ]ollaborate with Business Analysts to 
understand the functional requirements and converted them to technical specification documents," 
"[ c ]ontribute to redesign and development of an existing E-commerce website," "[ c ]reate !Flows and 
deployed using SAP Net Weaver Developer studio," and "[p ]rovide Go-Live and Post Go-Live support 
for multiple projects by troubleshooting the integration issues," but they do not provide sufficient 
standing legal standards and detennine first, whether the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation, and second, whether the Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition 
was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 T&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's 
background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within 
[a specialty occupation]."). 
11 "Failure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the 
[petition]." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). 
8 
detail regarding how these tasks merit recognition of the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
The duties as described by the Petitioner do not sufficiently communicate (1) the actual work that the 
Beneficiary would perform, (2) the complexity, uniqueness, or specialization of the tasks, and (3) the 
correlation between that work and a need for a particular level education of highly specialized 
knowledge in a specific specialty. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, we determine it is insufficient to establish the substantive 
nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary, which therefore precludes a conclusion that the 
proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive 
nature of that work that determines (1) the normal minimum educational requirement for entry into 
the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the 
proffered position and thus appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first 
alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which 
is the focus of the second alternate prong 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. 12 The 
Petitioner has not presented evidence or argument sufficient to establish that, more likely than not, the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation as defined by the regulations and the statute. 13 
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 the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden here, and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12 As the lack of probative and consistent evidence in the record precludes a conclusion that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation and is dispositive of the appeal, we will not further discuss the Petitioner's assertions on appeal. 
13 Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
9