dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-, INC . 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 26, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , an information technology consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "project management consultant" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . On appeal, the Petitioner 
provides a brief and additional evidence, and asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(]) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
As recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. The 
court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the 
statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the 
beneficiary's services. Id. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and 
educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform 
that particular work. 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner indicated that it will assign the Beneficiary to work as a "project management 
consultant" for an end-client for the duration of the validity period requested. 2 The Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Management Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1111, at a Level II wage on 
the labor condition application (LCA)3 submitted in support of the H-1B petition. 
2 The Petitioner employed the Beneficiary through STEM-related post-completion optional practical training. and has 
provided copies of wage statements for his employment with the Petitioner. 8 C.F.R. §§ 274.a.12(c)(3)(i)(C), 
214.2(t)(1 O)(ii)(C). 
3 A petitioner submits the LCA to the U.S. Department of Labor to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of 
2 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
Within these proceedings the Petitioner has submitted varying descriptions of the duties of the 
proffered position. 4 For instance, the Petitioner provided a "non-exhaustive" list of the Beneficiary's 
job duties consisting of 12 items when it filed the petition, which were largely reiterated by the 
intermediary vendors and the end-client in their letters of support, as follows: 
• Oversee various projects of a high complexity nature or has project accountability 
at the enterprise level. 
• Provide input into new products, processes, standards, or plans in support of the 
business. 
• Effectively lead the project team or the responsible area to align with the business 
objectives, project schedule, and project budget. 
• Mastery of complex facilitation and dependency management techniques ( cross 
team, cross department.) 
• Responsible for planning, developing, and executing schedules, ensuring 
methodology compliance. 
• Support multiple Scrum Masters, Product Owners, and Development Teams m 
understanding and enacting their roles. 
• Manage complex resolutions, and help develop solutions to complex problems. 
• Regularly communicate to senior management regarding the status of specific 
project deliverables, and interact with client to set and manage expectations. 
• Consults on new products, processes, standards or plans in support of the business. 
• Drive delivery and continuous improvement by utilizing feedback and metrics 
( quality, delivery rate) to identify areas of opportunity. 
• Facilitate PI Planning meetings, Scrum of scrums, PI demos, and PI Retrospectives. 
• Support the Strategic Program Management team in ensuring [end-client's] 
governance standards are applied within the team. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we determine that the proffered position does not qualify as a specialty 
occupation. Specifically, the record provides inconsistent and insufficient information regarding the 
proffered position, which in tum precludes us from understanding the position's substantive nature 
and determining whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 5 
either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer 
to other employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
4 We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted additional information for the job duties, and have closely considered and 
reviewed this material, as with all evidence in the record. For example, the Petitioner submitted a more expansive listing 
of the duties of the proffered position in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). It also included a listing 
of the Beneficiary's previous coursework for the purpose of conelating the need for the Beneficiary's education with the 
associated job duties of the position. However, we are required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine 
first, whether the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation, and second, whether the 
Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael 
Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after 
it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). 
5 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H- lB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
3 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
We conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently established the Beneficiary's offsite employment for 
the period of intended H-lB employment. The Petitioner initially provided an itinerary that indicated the 
Beneficiary would be assigned to the end-client through its contractual relationship with the mid-vendor 
and the end-client. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner later indicated that it intended to 
assign the Beneficiary to the end-client through contractual relationships that include a mid-vendor and a 
prime-vendor. The subsequently claimed contractual chain is as follows: 
Petitioner ➔ A-, LLC (mid-vendor) ➔ A-G-S- (prime-vendor) ➔ M- (end-client). 
The mid-vendor stated in its February 2018, July 2018, and December 2018 support letters, submitted 
at various times in the proceedings, that: 
This letter will confirm that [the end-client] has engaged [the mid-vendor] for 
Information Systems-Consultant Business Analysis and [the mid-vendor] has sub­
contracted with [the Petitioner] to help fill up this requirement. 
[The end-client] has an ongoing contract with [the mid-vendor] through the executed 
Master Service Agreement [MSA] to fulfill this and various other projects for the client. 
Because of the confidential nature of this agreement, [the mid-vendor] will not share it 
with any third party. 
Notably, the mid-vendor's letter did not mention its contractual relationship with the prime-vendor to 
effectuate the Beneficiary's placement with the end-client, nor did the Petitioner provide 
documentation to substantiate the mid-vendor's claimed direct contractual relationship with the end­
client. 6 In contrast to the mid-vendor's assertions, the end-client provided a letter in which it 
"confirms" that it has entered into an MSA with the prime-vendor (not the mid-vendor), noting under 
the MSA, the prime-vendor "is responsible for providing centralized staffing management services to 
the [end-client]." The end-client detailed the prime-vendor's staffing management role, which 
includes: 
Facilitat[ing] the filling of temporary [end-client] pos1t10ns by multiple staffing 
providers and executes agreements with each staffing provider to govern the scope of 
their obligations as sole employers providing temporary contract workers to the [ end­
client]. 
6 The claim a document is confidential does not provide a blanket excuse for a petitioner not providing such a document if 
that document is material to the requested benefit. Although a petitioner may always refuse to submit confidential 
commercial information if it is deemed too sensitive, the Petitioner must also satisfy the burden of proof and runs the risk 
of a denial. Cf Matter of Marques, 16 l&N Dec. 314 (BIA 1977) (holding the "respondent had every right to assert his 
claim under the Fifth Amendment[; however], in so doing he runs the risk that he may fail to carry his burden of persuasion 
with respect to his application."). 
Both the Freedom oflnformation Act and the Trade Secrets Act provide for the protection of a petitioner's confidential 
business information when it is submitted to USCTS. Sec 5 U.S.C. § 552(6)(4), 18 U.S.C. § 1905. Additionally, the 
petitioner may request pre-disclosure notification pursuant to Executive Order No. 12,600, "Predisclosure Notification 
Procedures for Confidential Commercial Information." Exec. Order No. 12,600, 52 Fed. Reg. 23,781 (June 23, 1987). 
4 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
[] [The prime-vendor] has agreed to handle for [the end-client] all responsibilities 
related to verifying and administering all matters regarding the eligibility of temporary 
workers who provide services to the [end-client], including the provision of 
documentation to staffing providers for H-lB candidate petitions. Accordingly, 
necessary information for the consideration of any candidate, including the nature of 
the candidate's employment, assignment details, and durations will be confirmed solely 
by [ the prime-vendor] .... 
However, the record does not contain copies of the end-client's MSA with the prime-vendor. 
Importantly, the Petitioner has also not sufficiently clarified which of the competing contractual 
relationships alluded to in the petition are the basis for the Beneficiary's employment with the end­
client. The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency and ambiguity in the record with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner has provided a partial copy of a supplier agreement (SA) between 
the prime-vendor and the mid-vendor, that consists of the first and last pages of a 14-page SA, which 
indicated, among other things that an assignment under the agreement "means a Job Posting that has 
been filled by a Contract Worker of [the mid-vendor] under which the Contract Worker will perform 
the Contract Services." However, this material did not farther describe the "Contract Services" to be 
provided by the mid-vendor to the end-client. 7 We conclude that the record lacks sufficient evidence 
of the end-client's project requirements, and the contractual relationships, if any, between the mid­
vendor, the prime-vendor, and the end-client for the Beneficiary's employment with the end-client. 
The Petitioner has also provided a November 2016 independent contract agreement (ICA) between 
the mid-vendor and the Petitioner. The document indicates that the Petitioner "will provide services 
through its personnel specified on the Purchase Order. .. " The mid-vendor's December 2017 purchase 
order identified the Beneficiary, and noted that he will "perform work for [the end-client] beginning 
December 10, 2017 and terminating on the end date of December 10, 2018." The purchase order 
alludes to possible extensions of the Beneficiary's assignment with the end-client "until such time as 
the above mentioned project is completed ... " Notably, the mid-vendor's letters each specify that "the 
services for this project will be substantiated through the terms of the purchase order." However, the 
purchase order does not identify the project to which the Beneficiary will be assigned at the end-client 
location, nor does it provide any farther narrative regarding the specific tasks that the Beneficiary will 
perform when he "work[s] for the end-client." 
Overall, we determine there is insufficient evidence of an obligation on the part of the end-client to 
provide work for the Beneficiary, let alone work of specialty occupation caliber for the requested 
7 We determine the Petitioner's submission of just the first and last pages of the prime-vendor's SA diminishes its 
evidentiary value, as it deprives us of the remaining portions that may reveal information either advantageous or 
detrimental to the petitioning organization's claims, and therefore, is of little probative value. It is the Petitioner's burden 
to prove by a preponderance of evidence that it is qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 T&N Dec. at 
376. In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. 
5 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
validity period. In other words, the evidence of record is currently insufficient to establish the terms 
and conditions of the proffered position at the end-client location. 8 
Moreover, a crucial aspect of this matter is whether the duties of the proffered position are described 
in such a way that we may discern the actual, substantive nature of the position. As noted, the record 
lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate the Beneficiary's assignment as represented by the Petitioner. 
Again, when a beneficiary will perform the work for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the 
client companies' job requirements is critical. Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. When determining 
whether a position is a specialty occupation, we look at the nature of the business offering the 
employment and the description of the specific duties of the position as it relates to the performance 
of those duties within the context of that particular employer's business operations. 
On a fundamental level, we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided consistent and sufficient 
material about the end-client's projects that the Beneficiary will be engaged in. The Petitioner initially 
stated that the Beneficiary "will provide technical services on the project for [the end-client]." The 
Director requested an explanation of how the Beneficiary's specific job duties relate to the Petitioner's 
and the end-client's products and services in the RFE. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided 
a letter and copies of the Beneficiary's project status reports which collectively indicated: 
While performing services as a contractor for [ the end-client], [the] Beneficiary will be 
assigned to the Salesforce Service cloud integration project [Salesforce project]. The 
Salesforce project purpose is to deal with Integrations related to many third-party 
systems for Case Creation when the user faces any issues related to [the end-client's] 
Products. So instead of Agent going to many systems to check issues, one place has 
been created to check issues. Different systems like Remedy, ITSM, Qualtrics, Zoom 
in, DOMO, Tableau are involved. 
However, the record does not sufficiently substantiate this project. For example, the Petitioner 
provided letters from the end-client, the prime-vendor, and the mid-vendor in response to the 
Director's RFE at various times throughout these proceedings. However, without more, these letters 
are insufficient to establish the terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's employment at the end-client 
location. As previously discussed, the end-client letter states that "the nature of the candidate's 
employment, assignment details, and durations will be confirmed solely by [the prime-vendor]." The 
prime-vendor's letter states "[t]he project is expected to last through December 3, 2018 and has an 
opportunity for an extension subject to continuing business necessity," but provides no information 
about the Salesforce project. The mid-vendor's letters each simply note that "[t]his is an ongoing, 
long term project and the services for this project will be substantiated through the terms of the 
Purchase order." We note again that the mid-vendor's purchase order does not identify the end-client 
project to which the Beneficiary will be assigned. Also, the end-client letter provided on appeal states 
that "[t]he project is expected to last through December 2, 2019, and has an opportunity for an 
extension subject to continuing business necessity," but does not identify or discuss the Salesforce 
8 A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1 ). The agency made 
clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-1 B program. See, e.g.,63 Fed. Reg.30.419. 30,419-
20 (June 4, 1998). 
6 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
project. Here, the record contains insufficient supporting documentation that identifies the scope, 
duration, and magnitude of the Salesforce project, to establish the substantive nature of the 
Beneficiary's role therein. 9 To further illustrate, the Petitioner emphasized throughout the 
proceedings that the Beneficiary will liaise or interact with various end-client personnel and 
stakeholder groups, including: 
• Responsible for planning, developing, and executing schedules, ensunng 
methodology compliance. 
• Support multiple Scrum Masters, Product Owners, and Development Teams in 
understanding and enacting their roles. 
• Regularly communicate to senior management regarding the status of specific 
project deliverables, and interact with client to set and manage expectations. 
• Effectively lead the project team or the responsible area to align with the business 
objectives, project schedule, and project budget. 
• Mastery of complex facilitation and dependency management techniques ( cross 
team, cross department.) 
Though the Petitioner described the job duties of the position, the evidence does not show the 
operational structure within this initiative in a manner that would establish the Beneficiary's role. 
While the Director in the RFE requested organization charts that would delineate the Petitioner's and 
the end-client's organization, and staffing hierarchy (including the job titles of the positions that the 
Beneficiary will manage in the proffered position, and the job title of the individual he will report to), 
the Petitioner did not sufficiently address this aspect. In its RFE response, the Petitioner provided 
material which indicates that the Beneficiary reports to its vice president of training and development. 
The organization chart shows various positions, including this vice president's position with a 
downward arrow pointing to a box entitled "employees," which lends little insight into the proffered 
position's placement within the Petitioner's organizational hierarchy. Further, the Petitioner did not 
provide evidence of the end-client's project staffing hierarchy, and sufficient information about what 
the Salesforce project actually entails in order to establish the substantive nature of the Beneficiary's 
role as a business analyst consultant within the context of this endeavor. Here, the documentation 
provided is not probative towards establishing the terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's 
assignment as imposed by the end-client. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88 (where the work is to be 
performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is 
critical). 
Moreover, as noted, 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. 10 Here, the Petitioner submitted an LCA for the 
"Management Analysts" occupational category corresponding to the Standard Occupational 
9 Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
10 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(6) requires that USCTS ensure that an LCA supports the H-1 B petition filed on behalfofthe Beneficiary. 
7 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
Classification (SOC) code 13-1111. 11 The U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (Handbook) states that "Management Analysts" typically: 12 
• Gather and organize information about the problem to be solved or the procedure 
to be improved 
• Interview personnel and conduct onsite observations to determine the methods, 
equipment, and personnel that will be needed 
• Analyze financial and other data, including revenue, expenditure, and employment 
reports 
• Develop solutions or alternative practices 
• Recommend new systems, procedures, or organizational changes 
• Make recommendations to management through presentations or written reports 
• Confer with managers to ensure changes are working 
The Petitioner job descriptions for the proffered position may comport, in part, with the typical tasks 
performed by individuals employed in the "Management Analysts" occupational category. However, 
despite the Petitioner's categorization of the proffered position as a "Management Analyst," the record 
does not sufficiently establish that the duties of the position sufficiently correspond to the occupational 
category. For example, the material in the record indicates that the Beneficiary will "[ c ]heck[] the CA 
Agile project management tool to list down any dependencies on other stories," "[ w ]ork[] with 
11 The O*NET Summary Report for positions located within the "Management Analysts" occupational category lists the 
following duties: 
• Document findings of study and prepare recommendations for implementation of new systems, 
procedures, or organizational changes. 
• Interview personnel and conduct on-site observation to ascertain unit functions, work performed, and 
methods, equipment, and personnel used. 
• Analyze data gathered and develop solutions or alternative methods of proceeding. 
• Plan study of work problems and procedures, such as organizational change, communications, 
information flow, integrated production methods, inventory control, or cost analysis. 
• Confer with personnel concerned to ensure successful functioning of newly implemented systems or 
procedures. 
• Gather and organize information on problems or procedures. 
• Prepare manuals and train workers in use of new forms, reports, procedures or equipment, according to 
organizational policy. 
• Review forms and reports and confer with management and users about format, distribution, and 
purpose, identifying problems and improvements. 
• Develop and implement records management program for filing, protection, and retrieval of records, and 
assure compliance with program. 
• Design, evaluate, recommend, and approve changes of forms and reports. 
The O*NET Summary Report for "Management Analysts," may be viewed at https://www.onetonline.org 
/link/summary/13-1111 (last visited Sept. 25, 2019). 
12 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Management Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/management-analysts.htm#tab-2 (last visited Sept. 25, 2019). All of our 
references to the Handbook may be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not maintain that the 
Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. 
8 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
implementation partners for service cloud implementation to get their status reports on work progress," 
"[ m Janitors, tracks and makes decisions on issues and risks at the program level, escalated 
impediments," "[a]ssists with the discovery, definition, and development of features and technical 
initiatives," and "[ s ]upports the Product Owner, especially with respect to grooming and maintaining 
the product backlog and facilitates a healthy intra-team dynamic with respect to priorities and scope." 
Additionally, the Petitioner provided copies of the Beneficiary's project status reports, which indicate 
that he routinely performed duties such as "[r]emedy/service cloud field mapping discussions," 
"UX/UI discussions on case details," "[s]ecurity review of Salesforce plugin for Chat," "CFE -
Configure CQA Mailbox," and "[r]edesigning of Customer Servicing API-New Post URLs." While 
the Petitioner submitted an LCA designating the "Management Analysts" occupational category for 
the proffered position, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that these position duties and 
responsibilities are consistent with the occupational category. In other words, the Petitioner has not 
adequately explained how these system design and development functions are closely related to the 
O*NET tasks and the Handbook's duties for the "Management Analysts" occupation. 13 Therefore, 
we are unable to determine whether the proffered position properly falls within the "Management 
Analyst" occupational category corresponding to SOC code 13-1111, which raises additional 
questions regarding the substantive nature of the proffered position. 14 
Additionally, the Petitioner has provided conflicting information regarding requirements for the 
proffered position. The Petitioner initially stated that it required "at least a bachelor's degree" for 
entry into the proffered position. It also provided February 28, 2018 prime-vendor letter which 
specified that a "Bachelor's Degree with a concentration in Business Analytics or a closely related 
field" was required. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted material that further 
provided a diverse range of requirements for the proffered position, including: 
• The Petitioner's September 2018 letter which stated minimum requirements for the 
position of a "Bachelor's degree in Management Information Systems, or a related 
area." 
• A July 2018 end-client letter which specified that requirements of a "Bachelor's 
Degree or Master's degree in Business Analytics or equivalent combination of 
training/ experience." 
• A July 2018 mid-vendor letter which required a "Bachelor's degree or equivalent 
combination of training and experience." 
• The Petitioner's "Exhibit 12: Job Advertisement[s] for [the] Proffered Position," 
which presented a job announcement for a 'junior project manager" which required 
a minimum of "a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, 
Computer Information Systems or a closely related field." The job notice further 
indicated experience requirements, to include "2-3 years of experience as a Project 
Manager/Project Coordinator " amon other thin 
• An opinion letter from .__ ______ ...--__ ....._........,associate dean of academic 
affairs, School of Business, University of in which he opines that "a 
13 The Petitioner must also resolve this inconsistency in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the 
truth lies. Matter of Ho, Dec. 591-92. 
14 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). 
9 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
minimum of a Bachelor's Degree in Management Information Systems, or a related 
area" is required for the proffered position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner restated the I requirements (e.g., a bachelor's degree in 
Management Information Systems, or a related area) and asserted "[t]he record of this proceeding does 
not include anything to contradict I t position requirements] to successfully perform the 
duties [ of the proffered position]." However, the Petitioner does not explain whyl I position 
requirements differ from the wide array of position requirements that the Petitioner, the mid-vendor, and 
the end-client contemporaneously put forth, nor does it explain the reasons for the variances in the position 
requirements within the material in the record.15 The Petitioner must also resolve these inconsistencies 
with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, Dec. 591-92. 
Due to inconsistencies and lack of sufficient information in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner 
has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary. This 
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. 16 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of B-, Inc., ID# 4662551 (AAO Sept. 26, 2019) 
15 Notably,.__ ___ __. also does not address the variances between the minimum requirements for the position as 
stipulated by the Petitioner. the end-client, and the mid-vendor relative to his own conclusions regarding the position 
requirements. Therefore, we find! I' opinion letter lends little probative value to the matter here. Matter of 
Caron 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 analyses of the proffered position. 
16 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 
regarding the criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
10