dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10274361 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 27, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology solutions and development company, seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary temporarily as a "software developer" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations.1 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 California Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 
concluding that the record did not establish that 1) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation, 2) the Beneficiary will perform services in a specialty occupation, and 3) that the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. The matter is now before us on 
appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the 
evidence. 2 Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 3 
I. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded, in part, that the Petitioner did not establish that the offered position qualifies 
as a specialty occupation. In her decision, the Director thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's failure 
to provide sufficient documentary evidence from the end-client to establish the duties to be performed. 
Upon consideration of the entire record, including the evidence submitted and arguments made on 
appeal, we adopt and affirm the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
the proffered position is a specialty occupation with the comments below.4 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christa 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
4 See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 26 l&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 l&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 
1994)); see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[l]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and evaluative 
judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved by a trial judge or hearing 
officer , then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings " provid ed the tribunal's order reflects individualized 
attention to the case). 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erred because she "misidentified the end-client." 
We, however, must note inconsistencies in the Petitioner's own statements. The Petitioner indicated 
in its original filing that the d11ties wo11ld be 
1
erformed for th "through 
its implementing partneJ, and its mid-vendorir---'"l--~~~~__J The 
letter further indicates that the Beneficiary will "work~e ~-~ group in the [i]ntegration 
and implementation of tha I Cloud elements forl__JCloud Integration - Cloud Financials 
Implementation." In response to the Directorrls requef1 for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner makes 
repeated references to the Beneficiary's work a including that 1) it "has the right to control 
[the Beneficiary]'s work atl I" 2) the Beneficiary will be "a software developer atl I', 
and 3) there is "non-speculative specialty occupation work for [the Beneficiary] at I I 
I I" 
Regardless, the record does not contain sufficient evidence from either I lor thd I I I which adequately describes the duties or minimum requirements of the proffered 
position. As recognized by the court in 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. 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. 
Although the Petitioner claims that it "supplied a job descri tion from the "which is 
"contained in the Roles and Responsibilities Section of th .___ _____ ___.Project description," 
there is no evidence that the four referenced bullet points are specific to the Beneficiary's role.5 
Instead, the eleven bullet points listed in the document relate to the project as a whole. Further, the 
document does not provide any information regarding the! l's minimum 
education requirements for the position. 
Without more, 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 
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. 
5 Even if the four bullet points cited by the Petitioner were specific to the proffered position, they are not sufficiently 
detailed to demonstrate the type and educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is 
necessary to perform them. 
2 
Accordingly, as the Petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we need not address the 
remaining grounds for the Director's decision. 
11. 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. The Petitioner has not met that burden here, and the 
petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3