dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
DATE: JUl 2 7 2015 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service~ 
Administrative Appeals Office 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
-·~ · -~-- - -- ---- ,-------------
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed . 
I. PROCEDURALBACKGROUND 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the netitioner describes itself as a 
34-employee "IT Services and Solutions" company established in In order to employ the 
beneficiary in what it designates as a full-time "Database Administrator" position at a salary of 
$80,000 per year, the petitioner seeks to classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty 
occupation pursu ant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b ). The petitioner is requesting to employ the beneficiary from 
Or.tnhP .r 1 ?014 to September 5, 2017 at its business address of - --- - -- · m 
, New Jersey . The petitioner indicated on the Form I-129 that the beneficiary will not 
work off-site or at any other addresses. 
The Director denied the petition , concluding that the evidence of record does not establish that 
specialty occupation work exists for the beneficiary, and thus, that the proffered position qualifies 
for classification as a specialty occupation. The petitioner now files this appeal , asserting that the 
Director's decision was erroneous. 
We base our decision upon our review of the entire record of proceeding, which includes: (1) the 
petitioner's Form I-129 and the supporting documentation filed with it; (2) the Director's Request for 
Evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the Director's letter denying the 
petition; and (5) the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) and submissions on appeal. 
As will be discussed below , we have determined that the Director did not err in her decision to deny 
the petition.
1 
Beyond the Director's decision, we have identified additional grounds of ineligibility, 
i.e., that the evidence does not demonstrate that the petitioner qualifies as a United States employer 
with an employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary, and that the beneficiary is qualified to 
perform services of a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed , and the 
petition will be denied. 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petition states that the 
proffered position is a "Database Administrator," and that it corresponds to Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) code and title "15-1141, Database Administrators" from the Occup ational 
Information Network (O*NET) . The LCA further states that the proffered position is a Level I 
(entry) position. 
In a letter dated March 20, 2014, the petitioner provided an overview of the proffered position and 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. Soltane v. DOJ , 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
its constituent duties, stating that the beneficiary's job duties include the following: 
• Conduct requirements gathering and business analysis in support of Data 
warehousing Efforts. 
• Provide all database architectural efforts across the enterprise application, 
including database management mid communications of related approach, 
policies and strategies. 
• Demonstrate functional understanding of source system to be included in D WH 
and design robust and scalable design for DWH. 
• Define and develop the execution handling strategies for the sensitive and 
business critical data structures. 
• Touch base with business partners for refinements for the Data warehouse and 
new additions. 
• Define and implement ETL Informatica strategies for 
loading the Staging Schema 
and Dimensional Data Structures. 
• Lead the development of the project to create solution to transfer the files and 
metadata of the files using a mapping. 
• Analyze inputs and devise strategy based on best practices and future 
supportability. 
• Perform Data Model Analysis for implementing BI & Web Services. 
• Modify existing databases and database management systems and coordinate the 
implementation of database security measures. 
• Work as part of a project team to collaborate database development and 
determine project scope and limitations. 
• Write and code logical and physical database 
descriptions and specify identifiers 
of database to management system or direct others in coding descriptions. 
• Approve, schedule, plan, and supervise the installation and testing of new 
products and improvements to computer systems such as the installation of new 
databases. 
• Review project requests describing database user needs to estimate time and cost 
required to accomplish project. 
(Verbatim .) 
In the samr IPttP.r thP. nP.titioner stated that 
11
[t]he beneficiary will work at [the petitioner's] office 
premises at NJ on the IMCLAP project. IMCLAP is the most complete mobile app 
for automation projects . 
. . . This is not an offsite position . . . . The beneficiary will be supervised 
at [the petitioner's office] by Mr. , President. 
11 
With regard to the minimum educational requirement for the proffered position, the petitioner stated 
that 
11
[ o ]ur company consistently requires that the Database Administrators working for our 
company possess the usual minimum requirements for performance of job duties namely Bachelor's 
degree in Computer Science, Information Systems, Engineering, Business Administration, or 
related field of study. 
11 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
In a separate letter dated March 15, 2014, the petitioner confirmed that the beneficiary "will be 
serving in the role of Database Administrator on the IMCLAP (Intelligent Mobile Cloud App) 
project for fthe petitioner l" and that the beneficiary will work on this project at the petitioner's 
office at _ 
m New Jersey. The petitioner stated that the 
beneficiary will be directly supervised by Project Manager on the IMCLAP 
project. The petitioner then listed the duties of the proffered position as follows: 
• Analyze, develop and write complex high-end, miSSIOn critical role-based 
computer programs requiring high degree of security and computational ability. 
• Work with project architect and /or technical lead to confirm and substantiate 
functional, technical designs, and project specifications. 
• Perform projects using open-source technologies. 
• Review and analyze complex programming specifications to resolve any possible 
misunderstandings. 
• Perform application programming assignments, typically maintenance or 
modification of existing systems. 
• Enforce coding standards and deploy new technologies as needed 
• Install 
new and improved application systems-enhancement, compilation, and 
testing. 
• Utilize appropriate software tools to develop, document, test and debug 
programs/objects. 
• Create procedures and batch processing control statements, user materials, 
documentation, and moving programs into production mode. 
• Understand and realize the design document using applicable Design Patterns. 
• Provide various reusable Design approaches to solve business functionalities for 
various modules. 
• Implement Web Services; develop business logic and test cases. 
• Involve in Developer Testing during application release every month. 
• Perform various forms of testing- unit, string, system, acceptance, volume, etc., to 
ensure that desired test results are achieved. 
• Troubleshoot applications. 
(Verbatim.) 
The petitioner also submitted a series of letters describing the beneficiary's responsibilities during 
different phases of the TRN IMCLAP project. The first in this series of letters describes the 
beneficiary's responsibilities during the "Product Design (Core Product)" phase of the project, 
which would last from October 6, 2014 to November 5, 2015, as follows: 
• Will be responsible for planning, Analyzing and execution of IMCLAP and 
environments. 
• Responsible in Standardize business processes and deliver end to end business 
process model; Facilitate workshops, present client reports, business cases and 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
other deliverables ensuring clarity around process reorganization and ownership 
are effectively communicated and trained in conformance to program objective 
• Gather client's key business drivers & document Business, Functional/non­
functional requirements, Data flow models, Use Cases, and systems with various 
kinds of Content Management needs. 
• Perform rigorous unit and system testing before 
releasing application to the end 
users. 
• Will perform end-to-end testing, which includes Functional, Regression and 
Retesting. 
• Involve in integration testing, UAT, data migration and Product Rollout and 
support 
• Integration of data model updates into code base 
• Mentor junior Analyst 
• Create and execute Unit test plans 
• Defect management and resolution-
• Manage a variety of programming and design staff according to project(s) 
scheduled. 
(Verbatim.) 
The second in this series of documents describes the beneficiary's responsibilities during the 
"Software Analysis" phase of the project, which would last from November 5, 2014 to December 4, 
2014, as follows: 
In addition to the above-mentioned duties, candidate will identify problems, study 
existing systems to evaluate effectiveness and develop new systems to improve 
production of workflow .... Analyst will assist in developing application software 
on specific needs. He will provide technical evaluation of new products, assess time 
estimation and provide technical support within the organization .... 
The third in this series of documents describes the beneficiary's responsibilities during the 
"Technical Design/Implementation/Testing" phases of the project, which would last from December 
5, 2014 to March 30, 2015, as follows: 
Analyst job duties shall include analyzing and gathering project requirements, 
developing and designing business programs customized to meet specific needs, 
training users on the use of software applications and providing trouble shooting and 
debugging support. It is thus her responsibilities and the time spent on the same 
would be as under: 2 
• Gather, analyze the business requirements from end-users 
• Lead and co-ordinate with teams for project deliverables 
2 Despite the petitioner's reference to "her responsibilities," the beneficiary in this case is a male. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
• Design, develop and integrate the Business Process Management and 
Enterprise Application module 
• Provide subject matter expertise on workflow and database products 
• Provide dynamic reporting capability 
• Resolve technical issues in the systems by research and investigation. 
• Standardize and automate the build process 
• Using Design Methodologies & Tools: 
(Verbatim.) 
The fourth in this series of documents describes the beneficiary's responsibilities during the "Mobile 
Add-On/Release 1.0/2.0 and 3.0" phases of the project, which would last from March 31, 2015 to 
September 29, 2017, as follows: 
• Beneficiary will enter program codes into the computer systems and enter 
commands into the computer to run and test the programs. He will replace, delete 
or modify codes to correct errors. He will provide technical support, solve 
problems and troubleshoot systems. 
• He will specialize in developing programs for specific applications to certain 
industries. He will be involved in systems integration, debugging, 
troubleshooting and installation. Beneficiary will offer solutions for various 
software and hardware problems and compatibility of various systems. 
• The 
Beneficiary will also be responsible for updating existing software systems 
and updating management on new software that is developed. Beneficiary will 
maintain records to document various steps in the programming process. 
• Involve in creating sequence diagrams as part of design using Visio. 
• Develop marketing strategies, operating model and lead business transformation 
by standardizing business processes, restructuring organization, enabling 
Culture/Behavior change, effectively communicating policies, processes and 
procedures in alignment with strategic direction and business plans 
• Increase sales turnover by 30% by identifying commercial opportunities and 
expanded market share, through the management of various organizational, 
operational and technology changes 
• Improve management efficiency by 10% by integrating information systems for 
accounts and HR management enabling staff to focus on critical value added 
activities 
• 15% reduction in inventory costs, and improved customer retention, by modifying 
proprietary inventory management database to reflect product-brand sales 
• Analyze business's core and support processes to standardize processes by 
reducing process variance and eliminating waste 
• Develop technology roadmap, facilitate IT system procurement and 
implementation by collaborating with finance team to negotiate deals resulting in 
an integrated technology infrastructure 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
(Verbatim.) 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
To meet its burden of proof in establishing the proffered position as a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the beneficiary meets the following 
statutory and regulatory requirements. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l) defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as one 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 term "specialty occupation" is further defined at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii) as: 
An occupation which requires [(1)] theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge in fields of human endeavor including, but not limited 
to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, 
medicine and health, education, business specialties, accounting, law, theology, and 
the arts, and which requires [(2)] the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the 
United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must 
meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) 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 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc. , 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also 
COlT Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); 
Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to 
meet the statutory and regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this 
section as stating the necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty 
occupation would result in particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner , 201 
F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be 
read as providing supplement al criteria that must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives 
to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaure ate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered 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"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-lB petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly 
been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty , or its equivalent, directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that 
Congress contemplated when it created the H-lB visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation , USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position 's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity 's business operations , are factors to be considered. USCIS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor an employer ' s self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry 
into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
B. Analysis 
We find that the evidence of record does not demonstrate that a work assignment exists for the 
beneficiary, and thus, that the duties of the proffered position are in fact associated with a specialty 
occupation. That is, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient, credible evidence to establish that 
the beneficiary will be exclusively assigned to its in-house TRN IMCLAP project , as claimed . 
As evident from the job descriptions quoted above, the record of proceeding presents the duties 
comprising the proffered position in terms of relatively abstract and generalized functions. The job 
descriptions lack sufficient detail and concrete explanation to establish the substantive nature of the 
work within the context of the TRN IMCLAP project, and the associated applications of specialized 
knowledge that their actual performance would require. For example, many of the stated job duties 
were copied verbatim from the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) OnLine Details Report for the occupation "Database Administrators." 3 While 
this type of generalized description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that may 
be performed within an occupational category, it generally cannot be relied upon by a petition er 
when discussing the duties attached to the specific position. As another example, the petitioner 
stated that the beneficiary will "assist in developing application software on specific needs," and 
will "provide technical support within the organization." The petitioner did not clarify what it 
meant by the broad terms "assist" and "provide technical support," what associated applications of 
specialized knowledge are involved, and how these duties specifically relate to the TRN IMCLAP 
project. 
Several of the petitioner's job descriptions reference an otherwise unspecified "Data warehouse" 
and
/or "DWH." For instance, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary will "[ c]onduct requirements 
gathering and business analysis in support of Data warehousing Efforts," "design robust and 
scalable design for DWH," and "[t]ouch base with business partners for refinements for the Data 
warehouse and new additions." However, the petitioner did not explain the nature of this "Data 
warehouse" and/or "DWH," how they relate to TRN IMCLAP, and what specific tasks and 
associated applications of specialized knowledge are involved. Notably, there are no specific 
references to a "Data warehouse" and/or "DWH" in any of the TRN IMCLAP brochures or 
documents. Likewise , the petitioner stated that the beneficiary will "[ d]efine and implement ETL 
Informatica strategies for loading the Staging Schema and Dimensional Data Structures ," and 
3 The O*NET Details Report for "15-1141.00, Database Administrators" lists the following duties for 
database administrators which are identical to the proffered duties: (1) Modify existing databases and 
database management systems or direct programmers and analysts to make changes; (2) Work as part of a 
project team to coordinate database development and determine project scope and limitations; (3) Write and 
code logical and physical database descriptions and specify identifiers of database to management system or 
direct others in coding descriptions; ( 4) Approve, schedule, plan, and supervise the installation and testing of 
new products and improvements to computer systems such as the installation of new databases; and (5) 
Review project requests describing database user needs to estimate time and cost required to accomplish 
project. O*NET Details Report for "15-1141.00, Database Administrators," at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
link/details/15-1141.00 (last visited July 22, 2015). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
"[p]erform Data Model Analysis for implementing BI & Web Services." The petitioner did not 
further explain the nature of these "ETL Informatica strategies," "Staging Schema and Dimensional 
Data Structures," and "Web Services," how they relate to TRN IMCLAP, and what substantive 
tasks and bodies of knowledge are involved. Again, there are no specific references to "ETL 
Informatica strategies," "Staging Schema and Dimensional Data Structures," and "Web Services" 
within the TRN IMCLAP documents. 
Despite the petitioner's assertion that the beneficiary will be exclusively assigned to its in-house 
TRN IMCLAP project, the petitioner stated in its March 15, 2014 letter that the beneficiary will 
analyze, develop, and write "computer programs," perform "projects," perform "application 
programming assignments, typically maintenance or modification of existing systems," and 
troubleshoot "applications" (plural emphasized). In other documentation, the petitioner also 
described the proffered duties as including work on unidentified databases, programs, applications, 
and systems in the plural, such as "[m]odify existing databases and database management systems," 
and "developing programs for specific applications to certain industries (emphasis added)." Here, 
however, the petitioner has identified only one product - the TRN IMCLAP mobile application -
that is being developed through the TRN IMCLAP project to which the beneficiary will be 
exclusively assigned. The petitioner has not specified what other databases, projects, programs, 
applications, and systems the beneficiary will work on, and how they specifically relate to TRN 
IMCLAP. Further, the petitioner has not articulated the nature of the beneficiary's work on existing 
databases and systems, considering that the TRN IMCLAP project seeks to develop a new mobile 
application. 
Moreover, the petitiOner repeatedly referenced unspecified clients and end-users to whom the 
beneficiary will provide his services. To illustrate, some of the proffered duties include "[g)ather 
client's key business drivers ... [and) requirements," and "[g]ather, analyze the business 
requirements from end-users." The petitioner has not explained who these clients and end-users are 
and why there would be client and end-user requirements, particularly during the initial design and 
development stages of an in-house project. Similarly, the petitioner listed some of the proffered 
duties as "[s]tandardize business processes and deliver end to end business process model; 
[f]acilitate workshops, present client reports, business cases and other deliverables." The petitioner 
has not explained why there would be client workshops and reports in the beginning product design 
stage of an in-house project. 
In fact, there are several job duties which are clearly not limited to the TRN IMCLAP project, such 
as "[i)mprove management efficiency by 10% by integrating information systems for accounts and 
HR management enabling staff to focus on critical value added activities." Other similar duties 
include "15% reduction in inventory costs, and improved customer retention, by modifying 
proprietary inventory management database to reflect product-brand sales," and "facilitat[ing] IT 
system procurement and implementation by collaborating with finance team to negotiate deals." 
These duties involving the petitioning company's systems for accounts, HR management, and 
inventory are outside of the scope of the TRN IMCLAP project, which the petitioner has described 
as the development of a mobile application related to borne appliances automation. These aspects 
of the petitioner's descriptions undermine the petitioner's assertion that the beneficiary will be 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
exclusively assigned to the TRN IMCLAP project, and raise additional questions as to the actual 
nature of the proffered position. 
Another problematic aspect of the petitioner's job descriptions is that many of the proffered duties 
appear inconsistent with the wage level selected here. As previously di~cussed, the petitioner 
designated the proffered position on the LCA as a Level I (entry) position. In designating the 
proffered position at a Level I wage, the petitioner has indicated that the proffered position is a 
comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the occupation. 4 However, the 
petitioner listed several duties indicating that the beneficiary will have relatively high-level 
responsibilities over others in the company, such as "[l]ead the development of the project," "direct 
others in coding descriptions," and "[a]pprove ... and supervise the installation and testing of new 
products and improvements to computer systems." Other relatively high-level duties include 
"[m]anage a variety of programming and design staff," "[l]ead and co-ordinate with teams for 
project deliverables," and "lead business transformation by . 
. . restructuring organization." 
Moreover, on appeal the petitioner repeatedly emphasizes the "advanced, complex nature of the 
position's duties." The petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a Level I, entry-level 
position is inconsistent with these and other stated duties, and raises additional questions regarding 
the substantive nature of the proffered position. 5 
4 A Level I wage rate is described in DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" as follows: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who have 
only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine tasks that 
require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and 
familiarization with the employer's methods, practices, and programs. The employees may 
perform higher level work for training and developmental purposes. These employees work 
under close supervision and receive specific instructions on required tasks and results 
expected. Their work is closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy. Statements that the 
job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship are indicators that a 
Level I wage should be considered. 
See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, 
Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/ 
pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009. pdf. 
Thus, in accordance with the above DOL explanatory information on wage levels, the Level I wage rate 
indicates that the beneficiary is only required to have a basic understanding of the occupation and carries 
expectations that the beneficiary perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that 
he would be closely supervised; that his work would be closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and 
that he would receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. 
5 The issue here is that the petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level pos1t10n 
undermines its claim that the position is relatively higher than other positions within the same occupation. 
Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
In addition to being inconsistent with the Level I wage rate, many of the proffered duties are also 
outside of the scope of general duties for the SOC code and occupation title "15-1141, Database 
Administrators." More specifically, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary will "[d]evelop 
marketing strategies, operating model and lead business transformation by standardizing business 
processes, restructuring organization, enabling Culture/Behavior change, effectively communicating 
policies, processes and procedures in alignment with strategic direction and business plans." The 
petitioner also stated that the beneficiary will "[i]ncrease sales turnover by 30% by identifying 
commercial opportunities and expanded market share, through the management of various 
organizational, operational and technology changes." The "15 -1141, Database Administrators" 
occupational classification does not, however, include any sales, marketing, or management-type 
duties. 6 Furthermore, the job duties found in the petitioner's March 15, 2014 letter focus heavily on 
programming and testing duties, and do not contain any express database-related duties. 7 Not only are 
these duties generally outside of the scope of duties for database administrators, but the petitioner 
has not explained how they specifically relate to the TRN IMCLAP project. 8 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an 
entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation 
qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may 
be a consideration but is not a substitute for a determination of whether a proffered position meets the 
requirements of section 214(i)(1) of the Act. 
6 See O*NET Details Report, 15-1141, Database Administrators, http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/15-
1141.00 (last visited July 22, 2015). 
7 Notably, the duties listed in the March 15, 2014 letter differ completely from those listed in the March 20, 
2014 letter. 
8 With respect to the LCA, DOL provides clear guidance for selecting the most relevant O*NET occupational 
code classification. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" states the following: 
In determining the nature of the job offer, the first order is to review the requirements of the 
employer's job offer and determine the appropriate occupational classification. The O*NET 
description that corresponds to the employer's job offer shall be used to identify the 
appropriate occupational classification . . . . If the employer's job opportunity has worker 
requirements described in a combination of O*NET occupations, the SW A should default 
directly to the relevant O*NET-SOC occupational code for the highest paying occupation. 
For example, if the employer's job offer is for an engineer-pilot, the SW A shall use the 
education, skill and experience levels for the higher paying occupation when making the 
wage level determination. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
The petitioner submitted a document entitled "TRN - IMCLAP - 2014: Intelligent Mobile Cloud 
Application," and a technical document entitled "TRNIMCLAP - INTELLIGENT HOME 
APPLIANCES AUTOMATION." 9 However, it is not evident how these documents constitute 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/ 
pdf/NPWH C _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009. pdf. 
Here, however, the petitioner has not identified which other occupational classifications are applicable to the 
proffered position. Therefore, we are unable to determine whether the petitioner has selected the most 
relevant O*NET occupational code, i.e., the code for the highest-paying occupation. 
Moreover, where a petitioner seeks to employ a beneficiary in two or more distinct occupations, the 
petitioner should file separate petitions requesting concurrent, part-time employment for each distinct 
occupation. While it is not the case here, if a petitioner does not file separate petitions and if only one aspect 
of a combined position qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS would be required to deny the entire 
petition as the pertinent regulations do not permit the partial approval of only a portion of a proffered 
position and/or the limiting of the approval of a petition to perform only certain duties. See generally 8 
C.P.R. § 214.2(h). Furthermore and as is the case here, the petitioner would need to ensure that it separately 
meets all requirements relevant to each occupation and the payment of wages commensurate with the higher 
paying occupation. See generally 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h); U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., 
Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), 
available at http://www .foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov /pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009. pdf. Thus, 
filing separate petitions would help ensure that the petitioner submits the requisite evidence pertinent to each 
occupation and would help eliminate confusion with regard to the nature of the position being offered. 
9 These documents vary significantly in their descriptions of major aspects of the project, such as the 
milestones, timelines, and resources dedicated to the project. For instance, the "TRN - IMCLAP - 2014: 
Intelligent Mobile Cloud Application" document lists the milestones as: (1) Product Design (10/5/14 to 
11/5/14); (2) Software Analysis (11/5/14 to 12/4/14); (3) Technical design (12/5/14 to 1/15/15); ( 4) 
Implementation (1115/15 to 3/15/15); (5) Unit Testing (2/18/15 to 3/16/15); (6) Beta Testing (3/15/15 to 
3/30/15); (7) Release 1 (3/31/15 to 6/29/15); (8) Mobile Add-on release (6/30/15 to 3/30/16); (9) Release 2 
(3/31/16 to 3/30/17); and (10) Release 3 (3/31/17 to 9/29/17). It lists the required personnel as consisting of 
10 programmer analysts, 6 systems analysts, 3 database administrators, 7 application engineers, and 4 
support engineers (total of 30 positions). 
The "TRNIMCLAP - Intelligent Home Appliances Automation" document divides the project milestones 
into four levels, each of which contains different timelines for planning, requirements gathering, design, 
development, integration and testing, and deployment. In addition, it lists the required personnel as 
consisting of 22 programmer analysts, 1 systems analyst, 2 database administrators, 1 quality analyst, and 1 
human resource person (total of 27 positions). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DE_CISION 
Page 14 
evidence of the beneficiary's assignment. Neither document specifically references the beneficiary. 
While both documents indicate that database administrator positions (among other positions) are 
involved in the project, neither document details the specific tasks to be performed by each database 
administrator, or by the database administrator position generally. 10 
The petitioner also submitted a document entitled "TRN -IMCLAP: Product Development 
Differentiators & Timeline- 2014." Like the two documents referenced above, this document also 
does not specifically mention the beneficiary. This document broadly depicts the "Proposed Team 
Structure" as consisting of the following teams or positions: Project Executive Management; Project 
Manager; Business Analyst; Quality Assurance Team; Development Team; and Database Team. It 
is not clear which of the above teams or positions include the proffered position, as the duties of the 
proffered position confusingly overlap with almost all of the roles and responsibilities for the 
above-listed teams or positions.
11 
These overlapping duties raise additional questions regarding the 
actual role of the proffered position in the TRN IMCLAP project. 
In addition, there are discrepancies regarding who will directly supervise the beneficiary on the 
TRN IMCLAP project. The petitioner specifically stated in its March 20, 2014, June 27, 2014, and 
July 7, 2014 letters that the beneficiary will be directly supervised at its premises by Mr. 1 _ 
President. However, the petitioner also submitted a March 15, 2014 letter and an Offer 
Letter specifically stating that 
the beneficiary will report to and be directly supervised by Mr. 
, Project Manager on the IMCLAP project, at the petitioner's premises. The petitioner's 
organizational chart submitted on appeal also identifies Mr. as a "Project Manager" who 
While understandably some plans may change over time, the petitioner is obligated to explain these changes, 
especially if the changes are significant as in this case. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 
(BIA 1988). The petitioner has not done so here. 
10 Again, we note that one document states that three database administrators are needed, while the other 
states that two database administrators are needed. 
11 For instance, the Project Manager is "[r]esponsible for the successful planning executions, monitoring, 
control and closure of a project [sic]," while the beneficiary will also be "responsible for planning, 
[a]nalyzing and execution of IMCLAP and environments." The Business Analyst is to "[a]ct a liaison 
between business users and technical team developing TRN-Imclap [sic]." The beneficiary will also be 
responsible for a variety of duties related to gathering and analyzing requirements from business users (i.e., 
clients and end-users) as well as to "[l]ead and co-ordinate with teams for project deliverables." The 
Development Team is "[r]esponsible for developing the code for the product and resolving issues raised 
during the testing phase." Likewise, the beneficiary will perform various coding and programming 
functions, such as "[p]erform application programming assignments" and "[e]nforce coding standards." The 
Quality Assurance Team is to "[test] the product for bugs, defects and other software issues." Similarly, the 
beneficiary will perform numerous testing functions, such as "rigorous unit and system testing," "end-to-end 
testing," "integration testing," and "[c]reate and execute Unit test plans." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
oversees numerous technical positions, including two database administrators (to be hired). The 
same organizational chart indicates that Mr. , President, does not directly supervise any 
database administrators . The petitioner has not explained these inconsistencies. Again , it is 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective 
evidence. Matter of Ho , 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof 
may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence 
offered in support of the visa petition. !d. 
Furthermore, the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the petitioner has sufficient work 
space to support the employment of the beneficiary, as well as the entire "team" for the TRN 
IMCLAP project, at the petitioner's premises at : in 
New Jersey. In particular, the petitioner stated on appeal that its current premises at~ · are 
sufficient to accommodate its seven employees currently working on-site, "in addition to 
conveniently accommodating additional at least seven (7) employees at its work location [sic]." 
The petitioner also stated on appeal that its current "Lease agreement for the work location ... can 
conveniently accommodate more than twenty five (25) employees." However, the evidence of 
record does not corroborate these assertions, as there is no information in the floorplan or lease 
specifying the maximum occupancy allowed. 12 Nevertheless, and more importantly, the petitioner 
has not explained and documented how its current premises are sufficient to accommodate its seven 
on-site employees plus the entire TRN IMCLAP team. As outlined in the evidence of record, the 
TRN IMCLAP project will require 27-30 employees, for a total of 34-37 employees on-site . Thus , 
even if the petitioner's premises could accommodate more than 25 employees as asserted, it is still 
not apparent that the petitioner has sufficient work space for its current on-site employees and the 
entire TRN IMCLAP team. The lack of adequate work space leads us to further question the 
credibility of the petitioner's descriptions of the beneficiary's assignment and of the TRN IMCLAP 
project overall. 13 
12 The floorplan of the petitioner's current premises consists of five (5) individual offices and one general 
office area of 688 square feet. 
13 The petitioner also indic ated that it can enter into a new lease for additional workspace, as needed , located 
at in New Jersey. However, the petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time offiling. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). A visa petition may not be approved at a future date 
after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Mich elin Tire 
Corp., 17 I&N Dec . 248 (Reg. Comm'r 1978) . 
Even if the petitioner had entered into the new lease for additional workspace as of the time of filing, the 
petitioner still has not explained and documented that this new lease would be sufficient to house the entire 
TRN IMCLAP team in addition to the petitioner's current on-site employees. Both the lease proposal letter 
and the floorplan of the prospective premises are silent as to the maximum occupancy allowed. The 
floorplan shows that the proposed premises have 15 individual offices, and two areas of general office space. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SoffiCi, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
Finally, we share the Director's concern that many of the petitioner's documents contain 
descriptions, diagrams, and other statements copied verbatim or virtually verbatim from materials 
created by other individuals or companies. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that "mere similarity in 
certain literature of brochures or certain pictorial diagrams in brochures to contents of another 
product description on web sites do not and cannot affect the veracity and genuine nature of the 
originality of the product developer/petitioner's concept." However, the petitioner's assertions are 
unpersuasive . The unauthorized reproduction of literature created by other individuals or 
companies undermines the petitioner's credibility, and precludes us from comprehending the true 
nature and scope of the TRN IMCLAP project. 16 It is again emphasized that doubt cast on any 
aspect of the petitioner 's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. !d. 
For all of the above reasons, we find that the evidence of record does not sufficiently demonstrate 
that the beneficiary will be assigned to the TRN IMCLAP project, as claimed. Moreover, even if it 
were established that the beneficiary will be assigned to the TRN IMCLAP project, the evidence 
still does not sufficiently describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary. Consequently, we 
find that the evidence of record does not demonstrate the substantive nature of the proffered 
position imd its constituent duties. The failure to establish the substantive nature of the work to be 
performed by the beneficiary precludes a finding 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 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. Accordingly, as the evidence does not satisfy any of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
Even if the petitioner were able to establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by 
the beneficiary, we still could not find that the proffered the proffered position qualifies as a 
16 For instance, because the petitioner copied the work of others in its "TRN- IMCLAP - 2014: Intelligent 
Mobile Cloud Application" document, we cannot determine the level of research, planning, and other 
resources that the petitioner has actually devoted to TRN IMCLAP. We also cannot determine which aspects 
of the document are credible and accurately represent the petitioner's work, and which do not. 
Thus, we find that the petitioner's response to this particular concern of the director (i.e., the petitioner's 
statements and documents focusing on the originality of the petitioner's product) does not fully address the 
questions posed by the unauthorized reproduction of materials. As such, we will not further address these 
aspects of the petitioner's evidence, including the opinion letter from Mr. and the 
petitioner's patent application. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
t'age 11 
specialty occupation. Specifically, the petitioner asserts that the proffered position can be satisfied 
by a degree in "Business Administration, or related field of study." 
The claimed requirement of a degree in Business Administration for the proffered position, without 
specialization, is inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. The petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and 
specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. Since there 
must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the 
requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as Business Administration, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz 
Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147.17 
For this additional reason, the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the proffered position is 
a specialty occupation. 
For all of the reasons specified above, the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the 
proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. According! y, the appeal will 
be dismissed and the petition denied. 
Finally, we will briefly address why we accord little probative weight to the letter from Mr. 
, Professor of Computer and Information Science, University. Mr. 
concluded that the proffered position "cannot be properly performed without bachelor's-level 
training in management information systems, computer science, or a related technical field." 
First, Mr. did not indicate that a bachelor's degree in Business Administration, which is 
accepted by the petitioner, would provide the requisite training and knowledge needed to perform 
the proffered position. 18 Second, Mr. did not sufficiently explain the factual bases for his 
17 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam that: 
!d. 
[t]he courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree , such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate prerequisite 
for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify the granting 
of a petition for an H-1B specialty occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis Int'l v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 
2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F. Supp . 2d at 1164-66; cf Matter of Michael 
Hertz Assocs., 19 I & N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 1988) (providing frequently cited analysis 
in connection with a conceptually similar provision). 
18 Mr. : listed the following "typical" bachelor's-level classes which would provide the necessary 
theoretical and academic concepts: computer information systems information technology, computer-aided 
design, data structures, software engineering, computer organization, database management systems, 
systems engineering, computer organization, database management systems, systems development, operating 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
conclusions. That is, Mr. did not specify which particular job duties and other salient aspects 
of the proffered position he relied upon, so as to demonstrate a sound factual basis for his 
conclusions. As discussed in detail above, many of the stated job duties are vague and inconsistent 
with both the wage level and occupational classification selected here. Mr. · did not indicate 
whether he was aware of these discrepancies and deficiencies. Moreover , Mr. did not 
mention TRN IMCLAP at all. It is thus not clear whether Mr. was aware of the petitioner's 
claim that the proffered position would exclusively be assigned to the petitioner's in-house TRN 
IMCLAP project. 
In fact, many of Mr. · 's comments raise additional concerns. For instance, Mr. ~ discussed 
the "typical" responsibilities of database administrators in servicing "custom database management 
systems (as will be utilized by clients of the employer ... )." He also discussed "the employer's 
reasonable need for a specialist capable of fulfilling contracted DBA engagements by preparing , 
installing, and subsequently managing multi-tier database infrastructure (to be used in the 
automation and upgrade of critical business processes for contract client firms . . . ). " Here, 
however, the petitioner claims that TRN IMCLAP is an in-house project; no clients or client firms 
have been identified . These and other comments raise additional questions regarding the credibility 
and relevance of Mr. letter to the actual position being proffered here. 
We thus conclude that Mr. letter is of limited evidentiary value in this proceeding. We may, 
in our discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. However , 
where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable , we are not 
required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N 
Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). 
IV. ADDITIONAL ISSUES 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the petitioner's appeal, we need not address 
other grounds of ineligibility we observe in the record of proceeding. Nevertheless, we will briefly 
note and summarize two of them here with the hope and intention that, if the petitioner seeks again 
to employ the beneficiary or another individual as an H-lB employee in the proffered position , it 
will submit sufficient independent objective evidence to address and overcome these additional 
grounds in any future filing. 
More specifically , the petition cannot be approved because the evidence does not demonstrate that 
the petitioner qualifies as a United States employer having an employer-employee relationship with 
the beneficiary. As detailed above, the record of proceeding lacks sufficient documentation 
evidencing what exactly the beneficiary would do for the period of time requested or where exactly 
and for whom the beneficiary would be providing services. Given this specific lack of evidence, the 
petitioner has not corroborated who has or will have actual control over the beneficiary's work or 
duties, or the condition and scope of the beneficiary's services. In other words , the petitioner has 
syst ems, management information systems, engineering, mathematics, computer science , and related 
subjects. Mr. did not list any business or business administration courses . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
not established whether it has made a bona fide offer of employment to the beneficiary based on the 
evidence of record or that the petitioner, or any other company which it may represent, will have 
and maintain the requisite employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary for the duration of 
the requested employment period. See 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "United States 
employer" and requiring the petitioner to engage the beneficiary to work such that it will have and 
maintain an employer-employee relationship with respect to the sponsored H-lB nonimmigrant 
worker). Again and as previously discussed, there is insufficient evidence detailing where the 
beneficiary will work, the specific projects to be performed by the beneficiary, or for which 
company the beneficiary will ultimately perform these services. The petition cannot be approved 
for this additional reason. 
The petition also cannot be approved because the evidence does not demonstrate that the 
beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation. The petitioner has not 
submitted sufficient evidence establishing that the beneficiary's degree is the equivalent of a U.S. 
bachelor's degree m 
a specific specialty that meets the requirements of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D). 
Here, the petitioner submitted an "Evaluation of Training, Education, and Experience" from the 
Corporation stating that the beneficiary has the educational equivalent in the United 
States to a Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Information Systems based on a combination 
of his education and work experience. 19 However, 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3) allows for "[a]n 
evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which specializes in evaluating 
foreign educational credentials (emphasis added)." In accordance 
with this provision, we will 
accept a credential evaluation service's evaluation of education only, not training and/or work 
experience. Furthermore, while the petitioner submitted several documents pertaining to the 
beneficiary's past employment, the petitioner has not submitted an explanation of how these 
documents establish eligibility under 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)(5) or any other provisions at 8 
C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D). 20 As sufficient evidence has not been presented that the beneficiary 
has at least a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, the petition could not 
be approved even if eligibility for the benefit sought had been otherwise established. 
19 This evaluation states that the beneficiary "completed the equivalent of three years of academic studies 
toward a Bachelor's-level Degree in Computer Information Systems." 
20 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)(5) requires the petitioner to "clearly demonstrate[]" that the beneficiary's 
work experience included the theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge required by the 
specialty occupation, and was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates who have a 
degree or its equivalent in the specialty occupation. It also requires the petitioner to demonstrate that the 
beneficiary has recognition of expertise in the specialty as evidenced by at least one type of documentation, 
such as recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation by at least two recognized authorities in the same 
specialty occupation. Merely submitting the beneficiary's employment contracts, resignation letters, and/or 
other similar documentation from prior employers, without more, is insufficient to meet all of the specific 
requirements set forth in 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)(5). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 20 
V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
As set forth above, we find the evidence of record insufficient to establish that the proffered 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. We also find the evidence of record 
insufficient to establish that the petitioner qualifies as a United States employer that will have an 
employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary, and that the beneficiary is qualified to 
perform services in a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed and the 
petition denied.Z
1 
An application or petition that does not comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by us even if the service center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 
2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
Moreover, when we deny a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it shows that we abused our discretion with respect to all of the enumerated 
grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1037, affd, 345 F.3d 
683; see also BDPCS, Inc. v. Fed. Communications Comm'n, 351 F.3d 1177, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 2003) 
("When an agency offers multiple grounds for a decision, we will affirm the agency so long as any 
one of the grounds is valid, unless it is demonstrated that the agency would not have acted on that 
basis if the alternative grounds were unavailable."). 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as 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; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied. 
21 As these issues preclude approval of the petition, we will not address any of the additional deficiencies we 
have identified on appeal.