dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 7749243 
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: (1) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation; and, (2) 
it qualifies as a United States employer with an employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary . 
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. SPECIAL TY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires : 
(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. 
B. 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 
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 
The Petitioner, which is located in Illinois, indicated that it will assign the Beneficiary to work for an 
end-client, in Michigan for the duration of the validity period requested. 2 The claimed contractual 
chain is as follows: 
Petitioner ➔ W-C- (prime-vendor) ➔ C-B- (end-client). 
The Petitioner submitted a certified labor condition application (LCA) 3 for the end-client location for 
the "Computer Occupations, All Other" occupational category corresponding to the Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1199, with a level III wage. 4 
A. Minimum Requirements 
As a preliminary matter, we observe that the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information 
regarding the minimum requirements for the proffered position. 
Initial Filing Degree Requirement Experience/Skill Requirement 
Petitioner's [Various information technology 
Mar. 2019 Bachelor's degree in computer science, tools.] 
Letter computer technology, or related. 
Petitioner's Bachelor's degree in computer science, [Various information technology 
Mar. 2019 information technology, a relevant tools.] 
Itinerary engineering discipline, or the equivalent. 
NOID Degree Requirement Experience/Skill Requirement Response 
Petitioner's Bachelor's degree in computer science, Strong computer programming skills 
June 2019 information systems or closely related [] and extensive experience in a 
related field. [Various information Letter field. technology tools.] 
Prime- Bachelor's degree in computer science or 4 years of practical knowledge and 
vendor's engineering ( electrical or electronics), or work experience in IBM FileNet. 
Letter information technology. [Various information technology 
tools.] 
2 The Petitioner most recently employed the Beneficiary through STEM-related post-completion optional practical training 
and has provided copies of wage statement for his employment with the Petitioner. 8 C.F.R. §§ 274.a.12(c)(3)(i)(C), 
214.2(t)(l 0)(ii)(C). 
3 A petitioner submits the LCA to U.S. Department of Labor (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 2 l 2(n)(l) of the Act; 20 
C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a). 
4 A prevailing wage determination starts with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering 
the experience, education, and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & 
Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009); 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHCGuidance _Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf. 
3 
Bachelor's degree in computer science or 4 years of practical knowledge and 
End-client's engineering ( electrical or electronics), or work experience in IBM FileNet. 
Letter information technology. [Various information technology 
tools.] 
Petitioner's Master or Bachelor Degree with/without In lieu of Master degree, we will 
Jan. 2019 accept Bachelor degree with five 
Job Notice expenence. years' experience. 
Bachelor's degree in computer science or a 
Professor related field such as information systems, NIA L's Letter engineering, or a related analytic or 
scientific discipline. 
On Appeal Degree Requirement Experience/Skill Requirement 
Master's or Bachelor's of Science in any 
Petitioner's discipline in engineering, or computer [Various information technology 
Position science or information systems or a related tools.] 
Description analytic or scientific discipline or its 
equivalent in education or work 
expenence. 
The Petitioner has not consistently stated the minimum educational requirement for this position. For 
instance, it initially specified a variety of bachelor's degrees as required for the position including 
degrees related to computer science, relevant engineering disciplines, or information technology. In 
response to the Director's NOID, it submitted letters from the end-client and the prime-vendor which 
indicated that a bachelor's degree in "computer science or engineering ( electrical or electronics), or 
information technology" would suffice, but also noted a requirement of "4 years of practical 
knowledge and work experience in IBM FileNet." On appeal, the Petitioner submitted a new position 
description which required a "[m]aster's or [b]achelor's of[s]cience in any discipline in engineering, 
or computer science or information systems or a related analytic or scientific discipline or its 
equivalent in education or work experience. 
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 Petitioner's stated 
minimum requirements, for example - that possession of knowledge of various information 
technology tools, along with "work experience" - alone indicates that the proffered position is not in 
fact a specialty occupation. 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). 
Further, certain evidence submitted in response to the Director's NOID is inconsistent with the 
Petitioner's Level III wage selection in the LCA. The purpose of the LCA wage requirement is "to 
protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate any economic incentive or advantage in hiring temporary 
4 
foreign workers." 5 It also serves to protect H-1B workers from wage abuses. 6 DOL guidance 
provides a five-step process for determining the proper wage level for the proffered position. 7 Step 
two of this process compares the experience described in the Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) Job Zone to the requirements for the proffered position. "Computer Occupations, All Other" 
are classified in Job Zone 4 with a Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating of "7.0 < 8.0." 
This SVP rating means that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of specific 
vocational training. 
The Petitioner's January 2019 job opening notice required an unspecified "[ m Jaster or [b ]achelor 
[d]egree, noting that a bachelor's degree in lieu of a master's degree would be acceptable "with five 
years [ of] experience." As the Petitioner's position requirements of a bachelor's degree and five years 
of work experience are greater than the experience and SVP range for the occupation, this would 
appear to require raising the wage level to a Level IV wage rate of $94,973. 8 The Petitioner indicated 
it would pay the Beneficiary $90,000 in the petition, a level of compensation greater than the prevailing 
Level III wage certified in the LCA, but less than the Level IV wage rate. 9 Here, the varying position 
requirements presented by the Petitioner, which include both a bachelor's degree and a level of work 
experience that exceed the level of vocational training consistent with a Level III wage rate for the 
designated occupational category, results in a significant pay discrepancy. 10 This raises questions 
regarding whether the LCA corresponds with the petition. 11 
The Petitioner also submitted an opinion letter from Professor L- who presents differing position 
requirements for entry into the position. However, the Petitioner does not explain why the position 
requirements in this opinion letter differs from other position requirements that it put forth, nor does it 
explain the reasons for its own variances in position requirements within the record. Professor L- also 
does not address the differences between the minimum requirements for the position as stipulated by 
the Petitioner, the end-client, and the prime-vendor relative to his own conclusions regarding the 
position requirements. 12 Therefore, we find the professor's opinion letters lends little probative value 
5 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). 
6 A petitioner submits the LCA to the 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. See Section 2 l 2(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.731 (a). While DOL certifies the LCA, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) determines 
whether the LCA's content corresponds with the H-IB petition. Sec 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(6) ("DHS determines whether 
the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition .... "). 
7 See Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, supra. 
8 Likewise, the end-client's and prime-vendor's requirements of a bachelor's degree and four years of work experience 
would also require raising the wage level to a Level IV wage rate. 
9 For additional information, see the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center, Online Wage Library - FLC Wage Search 
Wizard available at http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OESWizardStart.aspx. (Last visited Apr. 2, 2020.) 
10 Matter of Ho, Dec. at 591-92. 
11 See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). See also Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 2015). 
12 We observe that Professor L- indicates in his opinion letter that he interviewed Mr. S-, the end-client's principal project 
manager in March of 2019. While he describes his discussion with Mr. S- regarding the Beneficiary's duties at the end­
client location, he does not indicate whether he asked Mr. S- about the end-client's minimum requirements for entry into 
the proffered position, nor does he otherwise discuss the end-client's requirements within his letter. 
5 
to the matter here. Matter o_fCaron 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 professor's analysis 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. 13 As the record contains numerous and material inconsistencies 
relative to the Petitioner's minimum requirements for entry into the proffered position, which may 
also impact whether the LCA actually corresponds to the petition, the documentation submitted in this 
regard to establish eligibility for the classification sought lacks probative value and overall 
credibility. 14 For these reasons, the petition may not be approved. 
B. Third Party Contractual Agreements 
As discussed, the Petitioner located in Illinois seeks to deploy the Beneficiary to an end-client's location 
in Michigan to work as a "software engineer/FileNet engineer" through an intermediary vendor pursuant 
to contractual agreements. The Petitioner provided contractual documentation to illustrate this 
relationship. Nonetheless, it has not established definitive, non-speculative, specialty occupation 
employment for the Beneficiary. 
To begin with, the Petitioner has presented inconsistent evidence regarding the contractual 
relationships between the parties that are to form the basis of the Beneficiary's proposed employment 
at the end-client location within the H-lB petitions that it has filed on the Beneficiary's behalf Before 
filing the instant petition, the Petitioner filed a previous H-1 B petition on behalf of the Beneficiary for 
employment as a software engineer with the end-client. 15 In that petition, the Petitioner presented a 
contractual path for the Beneficiary's employment that differs from the contractual relationships 
presented in the instant petition, asserting that the Beneficiary's employment with the end-client would 
depend on contractual agreements through two intermediary vendors, as follows: 
Petitioner ➔ S-I-T- (mid-vendor) ➔ W-C- (prime-vendor) ➔ C-B- (end-client). 
Prior to the Director's denial of the previous petition, the Petitioner provided third-party supplier 
agreements between the Petitioner and the mid-vendor, and the mid-vendor and the prime-vendor, 
which indicated that the nature of the contractual relationships between the parties is one in which the 
mid-vendor has agreed to provide personnel through the prime-vendor to the end-client in order to 
augment the end-client's staff engaged in information technology-related work assignments. The 
contractual material between and amongst the Petitioner, mid-vendor, and the prime-vendor suggested 
that the end-client will issue documentation such as SOWs to the prime-vendor detailing the services 
13 Matter of Ho, Dec. at 591-92. 
14 Matter of Chawathe. 25 l&N Dec. 369. 376 (AAO 2010) (citing Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 
1989))-,------~ 
15 See I The Director denied this petition, and the Petitioner subsequently appealed the Director's 
decisio .... n.-Se-d,----....a.......:....:.:..::......::,I We dismissed the appeal. 
6 
to be provided and the fees for such services. 16 The Petitioner will provide candidates for potential 
selection by the end-client through the mid-vendor and prime-vendor for prospective staff 
augmentation assignments. The Director denied the previous petition, in part, determining that the 
Petitioner had not provided contractual documentation and other evidence sufficient to demonstrate 
that the position offered to the Beneficiary qualified as a specialty occupation. In support of the appeal 
of the Director's denial of the prior petition, the Petitioner submitted a March 2019 contractual 
agreement that the prime vendor executed directly with the Petitioner, (that omitted mention of the 
prime-vendor's contractual agreement with the mid-vendor), and a prime-vendor SOW executed 
directly with the Petitioner as evidence of a different contractual relationship between the parties. 17 
To evidence the contractual relationships between the Petitioner and the prime-vendor in the instant 
petition, the Petitioner initially provided the aforementioned March 2019 prime-vendor agreement 
with the Petitioner, which indicates among other things, that the "[the prime-vendor can] provide 
professional services to be performed by [the Petitioner] to [the prime-vendor's] End Customers at 
locations in the United States with the specific professional services being described in a Statement of 
Work ("SOW"). The Petitioner provided a SOW that identified the Beneficiary, the Petitioner as 
"contractor," and the end-client, stating that the Beneficiary would be employed as a "FileNet 
Admin/Engineer by the end-client from March 2019 through June 2019, a work assignment period 
that elapsed prior to the requested period of employment in the petition. 
In response to the Director's NOID, the Petitioner provides a different prime-vendor SOW that 
presents unexplained irregularities. While the SOW offers the same basic information outlined above 
in the March 2019 SOW, it was executed by the prime-vendor via electronic signature in November 
2017 for an assignment period lasting through June 2020. Notably, the record does not contain 
evidence that the prime-vendor and the Petitioner actually shared a direct contractual relationship in 
November 2017. 18 Additionally, the November 2017 SOW was not executed by the Petitioner until 
June 2019, after the filing of this petition and only after the Petitioner received notice of the Director's 
intention to deny this petition in May 2019. 19 It seems incongruous that absent a direct contractual 
relationship the prime-vendor would solely sign and execute a SOW with the Petitioner for the start 
of the Beneficiary's employment in November 2017, which the Petitioner did not sign and execute 
until June of 2019. 
16 We concluded in dismissing the Petitioner's appeal of the previous petition that while this material reflected that the 
Beneficiary had been assigned to work at the end-client location for certain periods of time, it did not substantiate the terms and 
conditions of the assignment sufficient to establish that the end-client will offer the Beneficiary specialty occupation caliber 
work through the contractual relationships described in the petition. 
17 The Petitioner provided no explanation for this change in the contractual relationships between the parties in the appeal 
of the previous petition, other than to note "[the Petitioner] had written a Direct Master Service agreement and PO with 
the [prime-vendor]." Matter of Ho, Dec. at 591-92. 
18 In contrast, the Petitioner's letters and contractual agreements submitted in support of the previous petition, (specifically 
prior to the Director's denial of the previous petition in February 2019), indicate that the Petitioner contracted directly with 
a mid-vendor, who contracted with the prime-vendor to effect the Beneficiary's employment with the end-client. 
19 Without further explanation and cla1ification, the work order submitted in response to the Director's NOTO has little probative 
value in establishing that the Petitioner had work available for the Beneficiary to perfmm when the petition was filed and 
continues to have such available work. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration 
benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
7 
Furthermore, we question why the prime-vendor would have executed the SOW for the Beneficiary's 
employment with the end-client from March 2019 through June 2019, if it had already contracted with 
the Petitioner and executed a SOW for the same position with the same end-client for an assignment 
period from November 2017 through June 2020. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies 
and ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, Dec. at 591-92. 
Considering the unexplained, inconsistent and contradictory information presented by the Petitioner 
in this matter, we conclude that the Petitioner has materially misrepresented the nature of the asserted 
contractual relationships through which it seeks to assign the Beneficiary for work with the end-client. 
We note that the misrepresentation of a material fact may lead to multiple consequences in 
immigration proceedings. First, as an evidentiary matter, the misrepresentation may impact the review 
and adjudication of the visa petition or immigration application. Ifwe do not believe that a fact stated 
in the petition is true, we may reject that assertion. See section 214(c)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
1184(c)(l); cf Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001); Anetekhai v. INS, 876 
F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1989). The Petitioner's submission of false statements may also call into 
question the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa 
petition. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Next, a material misrepresentation 
that is determined to have been willful under section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act may make an individual 
ineligible to receive a visa and ineligible to be admitted to the United States. See, e.g., Forbes v. INS, 
48 F.3d 439, 442 (9th Cir. 1995). Finally, a finding of willful, material misrepresentation may lead to 
criminal penalties. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1546; see also United States v. O'Connor, 158 F. Supp.2d 
697 (E.D. Va. 2001). 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner has provided partial copies of the prime-vendor's agreements with 
the end-client for the placement of staff augmentation contractors at the end-client location. However, 
without more, this material is insufficient to substantiate the Beneficiary's assignment with the end­
client. For instance, the Petitioner submitted pages 1 and 14 of the end-client's 2016 agreement with 
the prime-vendor, which provides on page 1: 
[The prime-vendor] will provide the [end-client] with the services and/or products set 
forth in Exhibits 1 and 2 of this Agreement, in the time frames set forth in Exhibit 2 of 
this Agreement. ... [The prime-vendor] agrees that [the end-client] will have the right 
of initial and continuing approval of [the prime-vendor] and its authorized employees, 
agents, and subcontractors, if any, who are rendering performance under this 
agreement." 
Page 14 of the end-client agreement contains the signatures of officials for the end-client and the 
prime-vendor but omits pages 2-13 of the agreement. Similarly, on appeal the Petitioner provides 
pages 1 and 26 of a 2019 master agreement between the parties, which reflects on page 26 that the 
end-client and the prime-vendor executed the agreement in February 2019 but omits pages 2-25 of the 
agreement. While these partial agreements confirm that the parties have shared contractual 
relationships over several years, the Petitioner has not established what the parties actually agreed to. 
We determine the Petitioner's submission of these partial documents diminishes their evidentiary 
value, as it deprives us of the remaining portions that may reveal information either advantageous or 
8 
detrimental to the petitioning organization's claims, and therefore, are of little probative value.20 
Notably, though the end-client agreements reference the provision of services based upon "separately 
executed [s]chedules" and "Statements of Work," the Petitioner has not provided contractual material 
from the end-client that details the terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's proposed assignment. 
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. Absent fully executed contracts and accompanying 
statements of work ( or similar documentation) between the Petitioner and the prime-vendor, and the 
prime-vendor and the end-client, the record lacks evidence of any legal obligation on the part of the 
end-client to provide the position described by the Petitioner in this petition. 21 The Petitioner did not 
sufficiently document the contractual terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's employment 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). 
While relevant, the letters from the end-client and the prime-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, 
the end-client's letter does not detail its legal obligation to offer employment to the Beneficiary beyond 
confirming that the "[the Beneficiary's] work at [the end-client] has been arranged through contracts 
between [the Petitioner], [the prime-vendor], and [the end-client]." Likewise, the prime-vendor's 
letter indicates that "[the prime-vendor] maintain[s] a preferred vendor agreement with [the end­
client], who engages our company in identifying and recruiting hard-to-find IT talent to perform IT 
projects. To do this, [the end-client] either uses our own employees or allows us to supply IT 
consultants through our sub-vendors or Employers with whom we have on-going professional 
relationships." 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. 22 
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. 
20 Matter of Chawathe, 25 T&N Dec. at 376. 
21 Cf Galaxy Software Solutions, Inc. v. USCIS, 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"). 
22 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). 
9 
C. Nature of the Position 
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 Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Summary Report for the 
occupation designated in the LCA. We must also 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. 23 
The Petitioner provided a copy of the end-client's 2017 FILENET P8, ILM Records Management, 
Control Issue Remediation plan [the project], and described the project as follows: 
The project is used to enforce the Information Lifecycle Management policies for the 
retaining and management of content identified as records for the appropriate 
designated life cycles. The project includes all Corporate Record Classifications 
(Codes) and provides for the records lifecycle management of FileNet P8 content and 
content from other systems that IBM Enterprise Records (IER) can record enable. The 
[IER] solution not only secures the content to protect it from deletion and 
modifications, but also destroys the content upon completion of its lifecycle. Holds 
can be place[ d] on content to maintain it beyond the designated retention period where 
applicable. 
While the end-client's project plan describes the high-level objectives for this initiative, it does not 
discuss the project's staffing hierarchy and the relative roles and responsibilities of the information 
technology staff that will be devoted to the project.24 The Petitioner provided copies of the 
Beneficiary's emails at the end-client location, and affidavits from individuals who indicate that they 
are the Beneficiary's work colleagues at the end-client location who confirm that he has been assigned 
to work there. The Petitioner has also provided various listings of job duties that Beneficiary will 
perform in furtherance of the project including the following job task listing which notes the relative 
percentage of time that the Beneficiary will devote to each task: 25 
23 To accomplish that task in this matter, we review the duties in conjunction with the specific project(s) or initiatives 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. 
24 We observe again that Professor L- asserts in his letter that he interviewed Mr. S-, the end-client's principal project 
manager in March of 2019. The professor states that he learned during the interview that the Beneficiary will be "part of 
the FileNet engineering team at the end-client," and that the Beneficiary "is monitored and regularly reviewed, including 
during approximately daily one-on-one communications with [Mr. S-], who also regularly provides feedback to the 
[Beneficiary's] HR manager at [the Petitioner]." The Petitioner has not substantiated the professor's assertions regarding 
the Beneficiary's relative role and responsibilities within the end-client's FileNet engineering team, Mr. S-'s daily 
monitoring of the Beneficia1y's work, or Mr. S-' son-going communications with the Petitioner regarding the Beneficia1y' s 
work perf01mance at the end-client location. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
25 We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted additional 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 and the degrees that he has 
attained for the purpose of correlating the need for the Beneficiary's education with the associated job duties of the position. 
10 
• Install and configure FileNet Content Engine 5.1, FileNet Process Engine 5.1, [IER] 
5.1, IBM Content Navigator 2.0.3 and IBM Workplace 1.1.5.0. (5%) 
• Configure IBM WebSphere 7.0.0.43 Administration Tasks. (5%) 
• Develop and Administer [previous software tools identified]. (10%) 
• Develop and maintain Search Templates, Entry Templates. Develop, Administer, 
and troubleshoot Record Declare Workflows and Custom Components to sync 
Document Properties to Record Properties. (25%) 
• Create Disposition Hold Sweep Profile, run and troubleshoot Disposition Sweeps 
in [IER] application. (10%) 
• Develop and execute Java tool to declare Records. Develop Java tool to distribute 
33m Records across 100k in each volume. (25%) 
• Develop and execute custom report SQL Queries to product Reports from Database 
for Active Holds Reports on Hold Report, Records Ready for Delete Report and 
Deleted Records Report. ( 10%) 
As noted, the Petitioner submitted an LCA for the "Computer Occupations, All Other" occupational 
category corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1199. In response 
to the Director's NOID, the Petitioner clarified that the proffered position corresponds to the 
occupational sub-category of "Computer Systems Engineers/Architects," corresponding to SOC 15-
1199.02. The Petitioner provided varied job descriptions for the proffered position which may 
comport, in part, with the typical tasks performed by individuals employed in the "Computer Systems 
Engineers/Architects," occupational sub-category. DOL's Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) Summary Report for this occupational sub-category indicates that individuals working within 
this occupation "design and develop solutions to complex applications problems, system administration 
issues, or network concerns." They also "perform systems management and integration functions."26 
However, despite the Petitioner's categorization of the proffered position as a "Computer Systems 
Engineers/ Architects," the petition also contains considerable narrative that references a position that 
substantially entails duties that closely correspond to the "Document Management Specialists" 
occupational subcategory at SOC 15-1199.12. DOL's O*NET Summary Report for this occupational 
sub-category indicates that individuals working within this occupation "implement and administer 
enterprise-wide document management systems and related procedures that allow organizations to 
capture, store, retrieve, share and destroy electronic records and documents."27 
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 l&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]."). 
26 The O*NET Summary Report for "Computer Systems Engineers/ Architects," may be viewed at 
https://www.onetonline.org /link/summary/15-1199.02 (last visited Apr. 21, 2020). 
27 The O*NET Summary Report for positions located within the "Document Management Specialists" occupational 
category lists the following duties: 
• Conduct needs assessments to identify document management requirements of departments or end users. 
• Consult with end users regarding problems in accessing electronic content. 
• Monitor regulatory activity to maintain compliance with records and document management laws. 
11 
For example, the material in the record indicates that the Beneficiary will be involved in "configuring 
Workplace Application for IER User interface" "Creating [records] disposition schedules based on the 
trigger for the deletion date as per the requirements and apply disposition schedule on Record Folders 
or Categories based on the requirements specified," "Creating file plan and recording Object Store," 
and "Getting approval for running the disposition delete sweep jobs to delete all the records that are 
ready for deletion," "Develop and execute Java tool to declare Records," and "Generating reports 
based on the deletion dates." An end-client email states that the Beneficiary is engaged in the 
"Declaration and distribution of over 3.3 million Sterling lending records," "Legal Holds processing, 
monitoring, and reporting," and efforts to "redistribute over 23. 7 million Trust records." Additionally, 
the copies of the Beneficiary's project status reports indicate that he routinely performed duties, such 
as "Develop new Record Classes, Property Template, Choice Lists in Enterprise Records in 
Development Environment," "Monitor logs for Record Declaration Java tool and fix dead lock errors," 
"Test all the test cases after deployment in QA," "Delete Records with no content," and "Develop 
Record Declare Workflow for Sterling Record Classes." 
• Assist in determining document management policies to facilitate efficient, legal, and secure access to 
electronic content. 
• Implement electronic document processing, retrieval, and distribution systems in collaboration with other 
information technology specialists. 
• Administer document and system access rights and revision control to ensure security of system and integrity 
of master documents. 
• Develop or configure document management system features, such as user interfaces, access profiles, and 
document workflow procedures. 
• Assist in the assessment, acquisition, or deployment of new electronic document management systems. 
• Search electronic sources, such as databases or repositories, or manual sources for information. 
• Keep abreast of developments in document management technologies and techniques by reviewing current 
literature, talking with colleagues. participating in educational programs, attending meetings or workshops, 
or participating in professional organizations or conferences. 
• Retrieve electronic assets from repository for distribution to users, collecting and returning to repository. if 
necessary. 
• Develop, document, or maintain standards, best practices, or system usage procedures. 
• Write, review, or execute plans for testing new or established document management systems. Implement 
scanning or other automated data entry procedures, using imaging devices and document imaging software. 
• Identify and classify documents or other electronic content according to characteristics such as security level, 
function, and metadata. 
• Prepare and record changes to official documents and confirm changes with legal and compliance 
management staff:: including enterprise-wide records management staff. 
• Assist in the development of document or content classification taxonomies to facilitate infonnation capture, 
search, and retrieval. 
• Prepare support documentation and training materials for end users of document management systems. 
• Propose recommendations for improving content management system capabilities. 
• Operate data capture technology to import digitized documents into document management system. 
• Document technical functions and specifications for new or proposed content management systems. 
• Exercise security surveillance over document processing, reproduction, distribution, storage, or archiving. 
• Analyze, interpret, or disseminate system performance data. 
The O*NET Summary Report for "Document Management Specialists," may be viewed at https://www.onetonline.org 
/link/summary/15-1199 .12 (last visited Apr. 21, 2020). 
12 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits the O*Net Summary Report for the "Computer Systems 
Engineers/ Architects" occupational sub-category, suggesting that the proffered position's duties fall 
within the duties typically performed within that occupational sub-category. However, we are not 
persuaded by the Petitioner's submission. While the Petitioner submitted an LCA designating the 
"Computer Occupations, All Other" occupational category for the proffered position and references 
this occupational sub-category, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the position's duties 
and responsibilities are consistent with the occupational category. Here, the Petitioner has not 
adequately explained how the position's records management duties which appear to predominantly 
involve the capture, retrieval, storage, and deletion of electronic records are closely related to the 
O*NET tasks for the "Computer Systems Engineers/ Architects" occupation. 28 
Additionally, we observe that while the Petitioner initially provided an LCA with the "Computer 
Occupations, All Other" occupational designation, it contemporaneously provided a letter in which it 
referenced the position as falling under the "Software Developers, Applications" occupation at SOC 
15-1132.00, and identified the position therein as an "Oracle PL/SQL Developer, not as a Software 
Engineer/FileNet Engineer." Therefore, we are unable to conclude that the proffered position properly 
corresponds to the "Computer Systems Engineers/ Architects" occupational sub-category which raises 
additional questions regarding the substantive nature of the proffered position. The Petitioner must 
also resolve these inconsistencies and ambiguities with independent, objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, Dec. 591-92. 
Moreover, the submitted job duties do not demonstrate the claimed complexity, uniqueness, or 
specialization of the work performed by the Beneficiary. For instance, the job duty listings describe 
information technology job functions, which lend insufficient insight into the relative complexity and 
specialization of the Beneficiary's day-to-day duties. 29 The Petitioner's job descriptions identify 
information technology functions and tasks, such as "Configure IER plugin for IBM Content 
Navigator to generate the reports," "Create File Plan and Record Object Store to existing FileNet P8 
5.1 environment," and "Create Holds based on the condition given by Business," but they do not 
provide sufficient detail to illustrate how these tasks merit recognition of the proffered position as a 
specialty occupation. Therefore, the duties as described by the Petitioner do not 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 
28 See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). 
29 The end-client's and prime-vendor's verbatim repetition of the Petitioner's stated duties for the position in its letters adds 
little to our understanding of the Beneficiary's actual duties. 
13 
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. 30 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. 31 
II. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP 
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 its assertion that it will have and 
maintain the requisite employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary at the end-client 
location. 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 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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. 
30 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. 
31 Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
14