dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10876352 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting and development services firm, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary 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-IB 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 California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, and that it will establish an employer-employee 
relationship with the Beneficiary. She also determined that the petition is not supported by a labor 
condition application (LCA) which corresponds with the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
the Director erred and contends that the petition should be approved. 
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 I&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. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION
A. Legal Framework
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 184(i)(l), defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States." The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates section 214(i)(l) of the Act, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the 
proffered position must meet one of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position.1 Lastly,
1 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation under 
section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertojf, 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"). 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(I) states that an H-lB classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will perform services in a specialty occupation ... " ( emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Without 
sufficient evidence regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform, we are unable to determine whether 
the Beneficiary will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
a specialty occupation and a position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). The services the Beneficiary will perform in the position determine: (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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
B. Specialty Occupation 
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. 2 
The Petitioner, located in Georgia, filed the petition on behalf of the Beneficiary, and initially stated 
that he will work off-site in Arizona, for an end-client. On the LCA 3 submitted in support of the petition, 
the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Software Developers, 
Applications" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1132. The 
location of employment specified in the petition and on the LCA was solely for the Beneficiary's off­
site placement in Arizona. The Petitioner described the contractual chain for this employment 
opportunity as Petitioner ➔ N-1- (mid-vendor) ➔ B- (end-client). However, a different situation 
2 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. 
3 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA 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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. Section 212(n)(l) 
of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). See Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 2015). 
2 
emerged within the Petitioner's response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). The Petitioner 
then asserted that the contractual relationships underlying the position had changed, as follows: 
Please note that the Petitioner had filed the instant petition seeking permission for the 
amended emp~oymenti°f [the Beneficiary] as [he] was assigned to work on a [p ]roject for 
[B-], located i Arizona. However, that [c]lient project came to an abrupt end for 
various reasons. The Petitioner subsequently assigned the Beneficiary to work on a 
[p ]roject for the [ c ]lient, [A-], which is located in [Florida]. Please find attached a copy 
of the [c]ertified LCA for the H-lB [a]mendment [p]etition filed by the Petitioner on 
behalf of the Beneficiary. 
Notably, the new LCA submitted in its RFE response was certified by DOL in October 2019, more than 
six months after the filing of the petition, for a work location in Michigan with N- LLC-, not for a 
work location in Florida with A-. The Petitioner has not explained how this new LCA is relevant to 
the proffered position in the petition. 4 The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency and ambiguity 
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 submitted other inconsistent evidence in support of the petition. For instance, it provided 
two letters from its CEO in its RFE response, dated December 10, 2019. Each letter indicates that the 
duration of the Beneficiary's off-site placement will be from October 2019 through August 2022, and 
states "[w ]e are providing this [letter] in support of [the Beneficiary's] H-lB petition and [are] providing 
the dates and places where she will perform her services, contingent upon the approval of the instant H­
lB petition." The Petitioner mistakenly and repeatedly references the Beneficiary in the feminine 
pronoun case in its letters. The record lacks an explanation for this inconsistency. Thus, we must 
question the accuracy of the documents and whether the information provided is correctly attributed 
to this particular Beneficiary and position. 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. 
Further, the Petitioner indicates in one letter that its purpose "is to confirm that [the Beneficiary] will 
continue to work as a [ c ]ontractor [ for the initially presented end-client, B-] at their location [in Arizona] 
as a [ s ]oftware [ d]eveloper," even though the Petitioner claims within the same submission that the project 
with B- "came to an abrupt end" after the filing of the petition. In the other letter, the Petitioner states 
that the Petitioner "has been assigned projects by [the new end-client, A-] and [ mid-vendor N-1-]," then 
alternatively asserts that the contractual relationships for the Beneficiary's work assignment with A- are 
through a different mid-vendor, L-. Given these unexplained irregularities, we determine the 
Petitioner's reliance on these letters as persuasive evidence of the nature of the Beneficiary's proposed 
employment is misplaced. 5 For the sake of brevity, we will not address other deficiencies and 
inconsistencies within the Petitioner's documentation. 
4 Regardless of the Michigan work location designated in the LCA, which appears unrelated to the employment opportunity 
described in the petition, this LCA cannot support the petition as it was certified by the Department of Labor (DOL) after 
the petition was filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(l). 
5 Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. at 591-92. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that the Beneficiary's work assignment with B- "came to an abrupt 
end," but gives no explanation as to why it presented conflicting documentation about the 
Beneficiary's proposed work assignment within its RFE response, to include the location of the 
proposed employment (variously identified as Arizona, Florida, or Michigan), and the inconsistent 
explanations about the contractual relationships between the parties. Collectively considering the 
Petitioner's numerous contradictory statements, and other inconsistent evidence in the record, we 
conclude the Petitioner has not established the work assignment that it actually intends to assign the 
Beneficiary to. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The documentation provided in the record 
is not probative towards establishing the terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's assignment as 
imposed by the end-client. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 387-88 (5th Cir. 2000) (where the 
work is to be performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job 
requirements is critical). 
Importantly, as the Petitioner admits, the Beneficiary's original contractual employment opportunity 
ceased to exist after the filing of the petition. Later, the Petitioner offered the Beneficiary a different 
employment arrangement in Florida with another end-client, and sought to amend the petition by 
providing evidence about the new position. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's statements and 
documents regarding the Beneficiary's new assignment with A-, this evidence was not properly 
presented in pursuit of this petition. A change in the location of the Beneficiary's work to a 
geographical area not covered by the LCA is a material change in the terms and conditions of 
employment. 6 After filing the petition, the Petitioner cannot offer a new position to the Beneficiary, 
or materially change aspects of the proffered position. A petitioner may not make material changes to 
a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of 
lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
We determine that the inconsistencies, discrepancies, and lack of probative documentation in the 
record raise questions as to the substantive nature of the proffered position. 7 The Petitioner has not 
submitted consistent, corroborative evidence to adequately communicate (1) the nature of 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. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. 8 For this reason, the petition may not be approved. 
II. LABOR CONDITION APPLICATION (LCA) 
The H-lB petition process involves several steps and forms filed with the Department of Labor (DOL) 
and the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS). The purpose of the LCA wage requirement is "to protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate 
any economic incentive or advantage in hiring temporary foreign workers." 9 It also serves to protect 
6 See 20 C.F.R. ~ 655.705(6 ). See also Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 T&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 2015). 
7 Chawathe, 25 T&N Dec. at 376. 
8 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. 
9 See Labor Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Nonimmigrants on H-lB Visas in Specialty 
Occupations and as Fashion Models; Labor Certification Process for Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United 
States, 65 Fed. Reg. 80,110, 80,110-11 (proposed Dec. 20, 2000) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 655-56). 
4 
H-lB workers from wage abuses. A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL 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. § 655.731(a). While DOL 
certifies the LCA, USCIS determines whether the LCA's content corresponds with the H-lB 
petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) ("DHS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA 
which corresponds with the petition .... "). 
The Director concluded in her denial that the initially provided LCA does not correspond to and 
support the H-1 B petition, as required. We agree. As discussed, the location of employment specified 
in the petition and on the LCA was solely for the Beneficiary's off-site placement in Arizona. Later, 
the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary is to be assigned to work for an end-client in Florida, a 
work location not included in the LCA submitted with the petition. Here, the Petitioner's request to 
impermissibly amend the petition by offering the Beneficiary employment at a location not covered 
by the LCA is an additional and independent reason this petition cannot be approved. 10 See 20 C.F.R. 
§ 655.705(b). See also Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 2015). 
III. MULTIPLE H-lB CAP-SUBJECT FILINGS 
Additionally, we need to address another ground of ineligibility we observe in the record of 
proceedings. If the Petitioner seeks again to employ the Beneficiary as an H-lB employee in the 
proffered position, it must submit sufficient independent objective evidence to address and overcome 
this additional ground in any future filing. 
A. Legal Framework 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) prohibits multiple H-lB petitions from being filed in 
the same fiscal year for the same beneficiary by an employer, or, under certain circumstances, by 
"related entities." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) states: 
Multiple H-IB petitions. An employer may not file, in the same fiscal year, more than 
one H-lB petition on behalf of the same alien if the alien is subject to the numerical 
limitations of section 214(g)(l)(A) of the Act or is exempt from those limitations under 
section 214(g)(5)(C) of the Act. If an H-lB petition is denied, on a basis other than 
fraud or misrepresentation, the employer may file a subsequent H-1 B petition on behalf 
of the same alien in the same fiscal year, provided that the numerical limitation has not 
been reached or if the filing qualifies as exempt from the numerical limitation. 
Otherwise, filing more than one H-lB petition by an employer on behalf of the same 
alien in the same fiscal year will result in the denial or revocation of all such petitions. 
10 Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the 
Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding whether it will have an employer-employee relationship with the 
Beneficiary. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ( 1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 
issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 T&N Dec. 516, 526 
n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5 
If USCIS believes that related entities (such as a parent company, subsidiary, or 
affiliate) may not have a legitimate business need to file more than one H-1 B petition 
on behalf of the same alien subject to the numerical limitations of section 214(g)(l)(A) 
of the Act or otherwise eligible for an exemption under section 214(g)(5)(C) of the Act, 
USCIS may issue a request for additional evidence or notice of intent to deny, or notice 
of intent to revoke each petition. If any of the related entities fail to demonstrate a 
legitimate business need to file an H-1B petition on behalf of the same alien, all 
petitions filed on that alien's behalf by the related entities will be denied or revoked. 
Recently, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated final regulations 11 implementing 
new procedures which require petitioners seeking to file H-1B petitions subject to the regular cap, 
including those eligible for the advanced degree exemption, to first electronically register with U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (' 'USCIS' ') during a designated registration period, unless the 
registration requirement is temporarily suspended. 12 While the regulations went in to effect on April 
1, 2019, USCIS suspended the registration requirement for the fiscal year 2020 cap season. 13 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iv)(B) provides the general procedures utilized for the filing 
of cap-subject H-1B petitions in fiscal years when USCIS suspends the registration process, as follows: 
Petition-based cap-subject selections in event o_f suspended registration process. In any 
year in which USCIS suspends the H-1B registration process for cap-subject petitions, 
USCIS will allow for the submission of H-1B petitions notwithstanding paragraph 
(h)(8)(iii) of this section and conduct a cap-subject selection process based on the 
petitions that are received. USCIS will deny petitions indicating that they are exempt 
from the H-1B regular cap and the H-1B advanced degree exemption if USCIS 
determines, after the final receipt date, that they are not eligible for the exemption 
sought. IfUSCIS determines, on or before the final receipt date, that the petition is not 
eligible for the exemption sought, USCIS may consider the petition under the 
applicable numerical allocation and proceed with processing of the petition. If a petition 
is denied under this paragraph (h)(8)(iv)(B), USCIS will not return or refund filing fees. 
B. Analysis 
The general prohibition on filing multiple H-1B pet1t10ns under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) is 
applicable here. On April 1, 2019, the Petitioner filed a cap-subject petition [petition #1] seeking a 
master's cap H-1B visa on behalf of the Beneficiary, which is the petition before us on appeal. 14 Prior 
11 Registration Requirementfor Petitioners Seeking To File H-1 B Petitions on Behalf of Cap-Subject Aliens, 84 Fed. Reg. 
888-957 (Jan. 3 L 2019), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-31/pdfi'2019-00302.pdf. 
12 An H-1 B "cap-subject" petition is filed on behalf of a beneficiary who may be counted toward the 65,000 visa cap 
established under section 214(g)(l )(A) of the Act ("regular cap"), or on behalf of a beneficiary with an advanced degree 
from a U.S. institution of higher education who is eligible for an exemption from the regular cap under section 214(g)(5)(C) 
of the Act ("advanced degree exemption," also commonly known as the "master's cap"), if the petition is ultimately 
approved. 
13 See 84 Fed. Reg. 888 (Jan. 3 L 2019). See also USCTS Announces FY2020 Cap Season Start, Updates. and Changes, 
March 19, 2019, https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-announces-fy-2020-h- lb-cap-season-start-updates-and­
changes. 
14 See section 214(g)(5)(C) of the Act. 
6 
to the Director's denial of petition #1, the Petitioner filed a second petition for the Beneficiary [petition 
#2], indicating in part 2.1.f that it was filing the petition as an "amended petition," and identifying 
petition #1 as the Beneficiary's prior petition, i.e., the petition to be amended through this new filing. 15 
To begin with, the Petitioner's request to amend petition #1 through the filing of petition #2 does not 
comport with the regulatory requirements for amended petitions, as petition #1 was not approved at 
the time of filing petition #2. The regulation at 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E) describes how a Petitioner 
may seek to amend a previously approved petition, in pertinent part, as follows: 
Amended or new petition. The petitioner shall file an amended or new petition, with 
fee, with the Service Center where the original petition was filed to reflect any material 
changes in the terms and conditions of employment or training or the alien's eligibility 
as specified in the original approved petition. (Emphasis added.) 
As petition #1 has never been approved, the Petitioner may not amend the merely proposed (but not 
approved) terms and conditions ofH-lB employment in petition #1 through the filing of petition #2. 
We farther conclude that petition #2 is not a cap-exempt petition as the Beneficiary is still subject to 
the statutory numerical limitations for the regular cap and the master's cap H-lB visa allocations. 16 
Therefore, in accordance with the regulatory provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G), we find the 
Petitioner has filed multiple cap-subject H-lB petitions in the same fiscal year for the instant 
Beneficiary. We farther note that a single employer, as is the case here, may not file more than one 
cap-subject petition for the same beneficiary within the same fiscal cap year even if there is a legitimate 
business need. 17 
We acknowledge that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) also provides: 
If an H-lB petition is denied, on a basis other than fraud or misrepresentation, the 
employer may file a subsequent H-1 B petition on behalf of the same alien in the same 
fiscal year, provided that the numerical limitation has not been reached or if the filing 
qualifies as exempt from the numerical limitation. 
However, the Petitioner's subsequent filing of petition #2 is not permissible under this regulatory 
provision. First, petition #1 was still pending at the time of filing petition #2, and the first cap-subject 
petition must be denied prior to the filing of a second cap-subject petition to meet this subsequent 
filing requirement. 18 Second, the fiscal year 2020 numerical limitations for the regular cap and the 
master's cap had already been reached prior to January 2020 when petition #2 was filed, 19 so the 
15 See SRC 20 095 50832, which according to USCIS records remains pending as of October 16, 2020. 
16 USCIS records do not indicate that the Beneficiary has ever been accorded H-lB nonimmigrant status. 
17 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G); Matter of S- Inc., Adopted Decision 2018-12 (AAO Mar. 23, 2018). 
18 Petition #2 was filed on January 16, 2020, while the Director denied petition #1 on January 28, 2020. 
19 USCIS announced on April 5, 2019 that it had received enough petitions to reach the congressionally mandated H-lB 
regular cap, and announced on April 10. 2019 that it had received a number of petitions projected as sufficient to meet the 
master's cap. USCTS further announced that it will reject and return all "cap-subject" petitions that were not randomly 
selected on April 10, 2019. See USCTS Reaches FY 2020 Regular Cap at https://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/uscis-
7 
Petitioner was not eligible to file petition #2 to request a cap-subject visa allocation, ( even if the 
Petitioner had requested this visa allocation when it filed petition #2). 20 
As discussed, we determine that the general prohibition on filing multiple H-1B petitions at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) is applicable here, and for this additional reason it appears the petition may not be 
approved. 21 
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. 
reaches-fy-2020-h-lb-regular-cap, and USCIS Completes the H-lB Cap Random Selection Process for FY 2020 and 
Reaches the Advanced Degree Exemption Cap, at https://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/uscis-completes-the-h-lb-cap­
random-selection-process- for-fy-202 0-and-reaches-the-advanced-degree. 
20 While petition #2 is not before us on appeal, we observe that USCIS may ultimately deny petition #2 in accordance with 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) as the multiple filing prohibition is applicable here, and/or petition #2 may 
be denied based upon the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iv)(B) which provides, in pertinent part, that "USCTS will 
deny petitions indicating that they are exempt from the H-1 B regular cap and the H-1 B advanced degree exemption if 
USCTS determines, after the final receipt date, that they are not eligible for the exemption sought." 
21 As the proffered position is not a specialty occupation and the LCA does not correspond with the petition, we will not 
address these issues further, other than to advise the Petitioner that it should be prepared to address them in any future R­
IB filings. 
8