dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-, INC . 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 26, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , an information technology consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "scrum master" under the H- lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . On appeal, the Petitioner 
provides a brief and additional evidence, and asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(]) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
As recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. The 
court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the 
statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the 
beneficiary's services. Id. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and 
educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform 
that particular work. 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner indicated that it will assign the Beneficiary through vendors to work as a "scrum master" 
for an end-client for the duration of the validity period requested. 2 The Petitioner designated the 
proffered position under the occupational category "Management Analysts" corresponding to the 
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1111, at a Level II wage on the labor condition 
2 The Petitioner employed the Beneficiary through STEM-related post-completion optional practical training. and has 
provided copies of wage statements for his employment with the Petitioner. 8 C.F.R. §§ 274.a.12(c)(3)(i)(C), 
214.2(t)(1 O)(ii)(C). 
2 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
application (LCA)3 submitted in support of the H-lB petition. Within these proceedings the Petitioner 
has submitted several iterations of the duties of the proffered position. 4 In response to the Director's 
request for evidence (RFE), it submitted a list ofjob responsibilities, as follows (verbatim): 5 
• Facilitating team meetings such as Daily Stand Up, Sprint Planning Meeting, 
Sprint, Retrospective meeting and Backlog Refinement meeting. (20%) 
• Prepare bumup and bumdown charts to indicate team progress during the sprint. 
(10%) 
• Calculate team capacity before the beginning of each sprint to allocate work 
appropriately among team members. (10%) 
• Capture and track impediments, risks, and dependencies for team until 
resolution. (10%) 
• Ensure that team is provided tools and resources necessary to work and that 
scope of work is clearly defined. (10%) 
• Distribute sprint reports to ensure stakeholders, management and project 
managers are fully informed of project risks, team activities, and project status. 
(10%) 
• Resolve team conflicts and focus on Agile values of openness, courage, 
feedback, honesty and respect amount team members. (10%) 
• Forecast deliverables coming towards the team based on work completed by 
other teams. (10%) 
• Help individuals and team clarify goals and actions to be achieved by them. 
(10%) 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we determine that the proffered position does not qualify as a specialty 
occupation. Specifically, the record provides inconsistent and insufficient information regarding the 
proffered position, which in tum precludes us from understanding the position's substantive nature 
and determining whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 6 
3 A petitioner submits the LCA to the U.S. Department of Labor to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B 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). 
4 We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted additional information for the job duties, and have closely considered and 
reviewed this material, as with all evidence in the record. For instance, the Petitioner also included a listing of the 
Beneficiary's previous 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-standing legal standards and determine 
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]."). 
5 The Petitioner also provided letters from the vendors and the end-client which substantially reiterate the various duties 
presented by the Petitioner. 
6 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H- lB 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. 
3 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
We conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently established the Beneficiary's offsite employment 
at the end-client location for the period of intended H-1 B employment. The Petitioner intends to 
assign the Beneficiary through a mid-vendor and a prime-vendor to work for an end-client, in Florida. 
The claimed contractual chain is as follows: 
Petitioner ➔ S-T-, Inc. (mid-vendor) ➔ I-, Inc. (prime-vendor) ➔ G-E-T- (end-client). 
The Petitioner initially provided documents to substantiate the Beneficiary's work assignment, 
including a November 2017 staffing provider agreement (SA) between the Petitioner and the mid­
vendor. The SA is an agreement for the Petitioner to provide staffing services for "businesses and 
individuals that are clients of [the mid-vendor]," as "described on Attachment A." The Petitioner also 
provided a November 2017 "Statement of Work- Attachment A," which identifies the Beneficiary, 
the prime-vendor, and the end-client, the job location, and a December 2017 start date, noting that the 
assignment may be terminated "immediately without cause ifrequested by [the mid-vendor's clients.]" 
This material did not identify the specific services that the Beneficiary would perform for the end­
client. Notably, the Director requested the contractual documentation between the parties for the 
Beneficiary's employment at the end-client location in her RFE. In response, the Petitioner provided 
a partial copy of the prime-vendor's February 2017 SA which calls for the mid-vendor to "provide 
services at [clients' premises] to be described later." The SA further stated, among other things: 
1. Compensation: For services rendered to Client by each Contract Employee of [mid­
vendor], under this Agreement, the [mid-vendor] shall be entitled to receive the 
compensation set forth in Appendix A. Employees of [the mid-vendor] working on 
behalf of [the prime-vendor] at Client site shall submit time sheets to authorized 
persons of [the prime-vendor] with the Client's charge numbers associated with the 
work, and an outline of the work performed during that period. The time sheets must 
be validated and authorized by the Client. 
3. Term. [] Performance of Services to be provided under this agreement shall commence 
on the date the Purchase order is executed for each specific contract employee as per 
the Appendix A labeled Purchase Order; and remain in effect until terminated by one 
or both parties in accordance with the conditions of [ number 9] of this agreement. The 
anticipated duration of this contract, if applicable will be specified in the Purchase 
Order. 
Importantly, the Petitioner only provided the first and last pages of the prime-vendor's SA. The first 
page contains "mutual covenants" numbered 1 through 4, while the last page includes "mutual 
covenants"l0-13. This material omits "mutual covenants" numbered 5 through 9. The Petitioner also 
did not submit the prime-vendor's purchase orders that would be specific to the Beneficiary's 
assignment at the end-client location, as referenced in the partial prime-vendor agreement. 
4 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
Further, the submitted end-client's one-page December 2016 master services agreement (MSA) with 
the prime-vendor, and the end-client's purchase orders are heavily redacted to such an extent that we 
cannot discern the terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's employment thereunder. For example, 
the end-client's November 2017 purchase agreement states that it is for "[the Beneficiary] - Resource 
to backfill a[ n] FTE replacement from BNSF System Integration Team for Scrum Master who resigned 
with the contractor," while the end-client's March 2018 purchase order states that is a "PO for [the 
Beneficiary] for [the prime-vendor] for SDNF Movement Planner." These purchase orders do not 
mention the Petitioner and the mid-vendor as much as we can discern given the redactions, and do not 
identify the duration of the Beneficiary's assignment, nor do they describe the specifics duties 
associated with the Beneficiary's proposed employment or the nature of the projects underway at the 
end-client location that might require his services. 
We conclude that the redacted omissions and the missing pages of the documents diminish their 
evidentiary value, as it deprives us of the remaining portions that may reveal information either 
advantageous or detrimental to the petitioning organization's claims, and therefore, is of little 
probative value. It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that it is qualified 
for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, eligibility 
is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. 
Collectively considering this material, we conclude there is insufficient evidence of an obligation on 
the part of the end-client to provide work for the Beneficiary, let alone work of specialty occupation 
caliber for the requested validity period. Id. In other words, the evidence of record is currently 
insufficient to establish the terms and conditions of the proffered position at the end-client location. 7 
Here, the documentation provided is not probative towards establishing the terms and conditions of 
the Beneficiary's assignment as imposed by the end-client. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88 (where 
the work is to be performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job 
requirements is critical). 
Moreover, a crucial aspect of this matter is whether the duties of the proffered position are described 
in such a way that we may discern the actual, substantive nature of the position. As noted, the record 
lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate the Beneficiary's assignment as represented by the Petitioner. 
Again, when a beneficiary will perform the work for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the 
client companies' job requirements is critical. Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. When determining 
whether a position is a specialty occupation, we look at the nature of the business offering the 
employment and the description of the specific duties of the position as it relates to the performance 
of those duties within the context of that particular employer's business operations. 
On a fundamental level, we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided consistent and sufficient 
material about the end-client's projects that the Beneficiary will provide services for at the end-client 
location. The Petitioner initially stated that "the Beneficiary will provide technical services on the 
project for the [end-client]." The Director requested an explanation of how the Beneficiary's specific 
job duties relate to the Petitioner's and the end-client's products and services in her RFE. In response 
7 A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The agency made 
clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-lB program. See, e.g..63 Fed. Reg. 30,419. 30,419-
20 (June 4, 1998). 
5 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
to the RFE, the Petitioner described the end-client's project as follows: 
While performing services as a contractor for [the end-client], the Beneficiary will be 
assigned to the Movement Plrner prlject [MP project]. The MP project is a real time 
network planning system for traffic leveraging multiple data sources such as 
D schedule, traffic control systems, andc=Jmovements. The MP project produces 
optimized traffic plan for entird I over a 12 hour planning horizon. Network 
Viewer, Network Optimizer, Auto router and Message Translation are core products of 
[the MP project]. 
While this narrative gives a high level description about an application under "in-house" development 
by the end-client, the record does not sufficiently substantiate the nature of this project. For instance, 
though the Petitioner provided a letter from the end-client, the letter is inadequate to establish the 
substantive nature of the work to be performed and a necessary correlation between the proffered 
position and a need for a particular level of education, or its equivalent, in a body of highly specialized 
knowledge in a specific specialty. Specifically, the end-client largely reiterates the Petitioner's 
position descriptions and states that "we have contracted the services of [the Beneficiary] as a Scrum 
Master for our Project," but does not reference or describe any of the projects to which the Beneficiary 
is to be assigned. Here, the record contains insufficient supporting documentation that identifies the 
scope, duration, and magnitude of the end-client's projects, to establish the substantive nature of the 
Beneficiary's role therein. 8 For instance, the Petitioner emphasized throughout the proceedings that 
the Beneficiary will coordinate, liaise or interact with various end-client personnel and stakeholder 
groups, including: 
• Facilitating team meetings such as Daily Stand Up, Sprint Planning Meeting, 
Sprint, Retrospective meeting and Backlog Refinement meeting. 
• Calculate team capacity before the beginning of each sprint to allocate work 
appropriately among team member. 
• Ensure that team is provided tools and resources necessary to work and that 
scope of work is clearly defined. 
• Distribute sprint reports to ensure stakeholders, management and project 
managers are fully informed of project risks, team activities, and project status. 
• Help individuals and team clarify goals and actions to be achieved by them. 
Though the Petitioner described the job duties of the position, the evidence does not show the 
operational structure within this initiative in a manner that would establish the Beneficiary's role. 
While the Director in the RFE requested organization charts that would delineate the Petitioner's and 
the end-client's organization, and staffing hierarchy (including the job titles of the positions that the 
Beneficiary will manage in the proffered position, and the job title of the individual he will report to), 
the Petitioner did not sufficiently address this aspect. In its RFE response, the Petitioner provided 
material which indicates that the Beneficiary reports to its vice president of training and development. 
The organization chart shows various positions, including this vice president's position with a 
downward arrow pointing to a box entitled "employees," which lends little insight into the proffered 
position's placement within the Petitioner's organizational hierarchy. Further, the Petitioner did not 
8 Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
6 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
provide evidence of the end-client's project staffing hierarchy, and sufficient information about what 
the end-client's projects actually entail in order to establish the substantive nature of the Beneficiary's 
role as a "scrum master" within the context of this endeavor. Here, the documentation provided is 
not probative towards establishing the terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's assignment as 
imposed by the end-client. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88 (where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical). 
Moreover, in determining the nature of a proffered position, the critical element is not the title of the 
position, but the duties of the underlying position. As part of our analysis, we review the duties of the 
proffered position to assess the duties and determine whether the described duties correspond to the 
duties and tasks listed in the O*NET Summary Report for the occupation designated in the LCA. In 
this case the Petitioner submitted an LCA for the "Management Analysts" occupational category 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1111. 9 The U.S. 
Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) states that "Management 
Analysts" typically: 10 
• Gather and organize information about the problem to be solved or the procedure to 
be improved 
• Interview personnel and conduct onsite observations to determine the methods, 
equipment, and personnel that will be needed 
9 The O*NET Summary Report for positions located within the ·'Management Analysts" occupational category lists the 
following duties: 
• Document findings of study and prepare recommendations for implementation of new systems, 
procedures, or organizational changes. 
• Interview personnel and conduct on-site observation to ascertain unit functions, work performed, and 
methods, equipment, and personnel used. 
• Analyze data gathered and develop solutions or alternative methods of proceeding. 
• Plan study of work problems and procedures, such as organizational change, communications, 
information flow, integrated production methods, inventory control, or cost analysis. 
• Confer with personnel concerned to ensure successful functioning of newly implemented systems or 
procedures. 
• Gather and organize information on problems or procedures. 
• Prepare manuals and train workers in use of new forms, reports, procedures or equipment, according to 
organizational policy. 
• Review forms and reports and confer with management and users about format, distribution, and 
purpose, identifying problems and improvements. 
• Develop and implement records management program for filing, protection, and retrieval of records, and 
assure compliance with program. 
• Design, evaluate, recommend, and approve changes of forms and reports. 
The O*NET Summary Report for "Management Analysts," may be viewed at https://www.onetonline.org 
/link/summary/13-1111 (last visited Sept. 25, 2019). 
10 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Management Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/management-analysts.htm#tab-2 (last visited Sept. 25, 2019). All of our 
references to the Handbook may be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not maintain that the 
Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. 
7 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
• Analyze financial and other data, including revenue, expenditure, and employment 
reports 
• Develop solutions or alternative practices 
• Recommend new systems, procedures, or organizational changes 
• Make recommendations to management through presentations or written reports 
• Confer with managers to ensure changes are working 
However, despite the Petitioner's categorization of the proffered position as a "Management Analyst," 
the record does not sufficiently establish that the duties of the proffered position correspond to the 
occupational category. For example, the material in the record indicates that the Beneficiary will be 
involved in meeting with "[the] Product Owner to refine and clarify the upcoming tasks for the team 
member," "[the] Scrum Masters from all scrum team[s] to collaborate and share[] common 
understanding to promote system thinking," and will provide "senior stakeholders with different types 
of reports to ensure that the teams meet[] the deadlines of delivery," as well as "[c]alculate team 
capacity before the beginning of each sprint to allocate work appropriately among team members." 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that it "correctly used the [Management Analysts] SOC Code 13-
1111 based on the job duties for the proffered position." However, we are not persuaded by the 
Petitioner's submission. While the Petitioner submitted an LCA designating the "Management 
Analysts" occupational category for the proffered position, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
established that these position duties and responsibilities are consistent with the occupational category. 
Here, the Petitioner has not adequately explained how the described duties of the proffered position 
are closely related to the O*NET tasks and the Handbook's duties for the "Management Analysts" 
occupation. 11 Therefore, we are unable to conclude that the proffered position properly corresponds 
to the "Management Analyst" occupational category corresponding to SOC code 13-1111, which 
raises additional questions regarding the substantive nature of the proffered position. The Petitioner 
must resolve these inconsistencies and ambiguities with independent, objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Moreover, the Petitioner has provided conflicting information regarding requirements for the proffered 
position. The Petitioner initially stated that it required "at least a bachelor's degree" for entry into the 
proffered position. The initially provided March 2018 mid-vendor letter specified that a "bachelor's 
degree or above in a suitable field" was required for the proffered position. In response to the 
Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted material that farther provided a diverse range of requirements 
for the proffered position, including: 
• The Petitioner's August 2018 letter, which indicated that its "Management Analyst's 
position (internally designated as "Scrum Master") would normally require a 
Bachelor's degree or its Equivalent in Business Administration with a concentration in 
Management, Information Systems, or a closely related discipline." 
• The prime-vendor's letter which specified that the proffered position requires "at least 
a Bachelor degree or equivalent in Project Management or related fields. The 
educational background and work experience is an important prerequisite for this 
position ... " 
11 See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). 
8 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
• The August 2018 mid-vendor letter which states "the above mentioned duties fits the 
job title of Scrum Master and [requires] at least a Bachelor Degree or equivalent in 
business or a relevant field." 
• A second August 2018 Petitioner letter, which indicated position requirements of "a 
Bachelor Degree or its equivalent in Business Administration with a concentration in 
Project Management or a closely related field with 2-4 years of experience." 
• An undated "Junior Project Manager" announcement which the Petitioner indicated 
was the "Petitioner's job advertisement for the proffered position," which required "a 
minimum of a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, 
Computer Information Systems or a closely related field. The job notice further 
indicated experience requirements, to include "2-3 years as a Project Manager/Project 
Coordinator." 
• An opinion letter froml I Associate Dean - Academic Affairs, 
School of Business, University of1 I in which he opines that "a minimum of 
a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Management, 
Information Systems, or a related area" is required for the proffered position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner restated thel I requirements ( e.g., a bachelor's degree in Business 
Administration with a concentration in Management, Information Systems, or a related area) and 
asserts "[ t ]he record of this proceeding does not include anything to contradict! I' position 
requirements] to successfully perform the duties [ of the proffered position]." However, the Petitioner 
does not explain whyl I' position requirements differ from the wide array of position 
requirements that the Petitioner, mid-vendor, prime-vendor, and end-client contemporaneously put forth, 
nor does it explain the reasons for the variances in the position requirements within the material in the 
record. 12 The Petitioner must also resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, Dec. 591-92. Unresolved material inconsistencies may 
lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the 
requested immigration benefit. Id. 
Without sufficient and consistent evidence of the Beneficiary's duties in relation to specific end­
client's project( s ), and of the minimum requirements necessary to perform the duties of the position, 
the Petitioner has not established 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 
12 Notably, I ~ also does not address the variances between the minimum requirements for the position as 
stipulated by the Petitioner, end-client, prime-vendor, and mid-vendor relative to his own conclusions regarding the 
position requirements. Therefore, we find I I opinion letter lends little probative value to the matter here. 
Matter of Caron Int'/, 19 T&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not required to accept or may give less weight 
to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable."). For the sake of 
brevity, we will not address other deficiencies within the professor's analyses of the proffered position. 
9 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
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. 13 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of B-, Inc., ID# 4858183 (AAO Sept. 26, 2019) 
13 As the lack of probative and consistent evidence in the record precludes a conclusion that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation and is dispositive of the appeal, we will not fiuiher discuss the Petitioner's assertions on appeal 
regarding the criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
10