dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10165568 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-18) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 23, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "process analyst" under the H-18 
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-18 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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate el igibi I ity by a preponderance of the evidence.1 
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de nova. 2 Upon de 
nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-18 nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States." The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates section 214(i)(I) of the Act but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the 
proffered position must meet one of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 3 Lastly, 
1 Section 291 of the Act ; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christa 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
3 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation under 
section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) . We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(1) states that an H-1B classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will perform services in a specialty occupation ... "(emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Without 
sufficient evidence regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform, we are unable to determine whether 
the Beneficiary will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
a specialty occupation and a position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The services the Beneficiary will perform in the position determine: (1) the normal 
minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 
1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review 
for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of 
complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong 
of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, 
when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the 
specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Further, as recognized by the court in Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 87-88 (5th Cir 2000), where 
the work is to be performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job 
requirements is critical. The court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had 
reasonably interpreted the statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that 
a proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by 
the entities using the beneficiary's services. Id. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to 
demonstrate the type and educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline 
that is necessary to perform that particular work. 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(1) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently established 
the services in a specialty occupation that the Beneficiary would perform during the requested period 
of employment, which precludes a determination of whether the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation under sections 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 214(i)(1) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(1), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and (iii)(A). 
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"). 
2 
A. Nature of the Position 
The Petitioner, an information technology and systems consulting company, requested the 
Beneficiary's employment period to begin October 1, 2019 and end December 31, 2020. In its letter 
in support of the petition the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be assigned to work at its client 
site I~ I end-client) and at its headquarters, both in I I Pennsylvania. An 
itinerary submitted with the petition identified the Beneficiary and provided a brief description of the 
position, as well as confirming the twol I locations, the time period, and the end-client. 
On the labor condition application (LCA)4 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Operations Research Analysts" 
corresponding to the standard occupational classification (SOC) code 15-2031, at a level 11 wage. The 
Petitioner provided a broad description of the position indicating generally that the Beneficiary will 
be responsible for "assessing process strengths and weaknesses for [the Petitioner's] clients through 
complex analysis techniques, including senior and operating management focused interviews, 
analytical procedures, benchmarking of leading practices across the business, and external research to 
determine optimal techniques or improving effectiveness and efficiency of business operations." The 
Petitioner stated the specific job duties include (bullet points added for clarity): 
I Defining AS-IS processes and developing TO-BE processes, and dashboards and/or 
performance scorecards; 
I Performing gap analysis to evaluate the desired client functionality against current 
and future capabilities; 
I Developing complex spreadsheets to analyze client data; 
I Analyzing cross functional business processes and making specific cost reduction 
or process improvement recommendations; 
I Presenting process improvement recommendations at meetings; 
I Utilizing project management methodologies to manage workloads and project 
components; 
I Providing client with relevant insight and innovative solutions to complex business 
problems; 
I Gathering and documenting requirements for both system and non-system bases 
processes; 
I Performing top-down assessments and developing internal control frameworks; 
I Managing the system selection and request for proposal (RFP) processes; [and,] 
I Carrying out system study and analysis to ensure client software systems are 
meeting the business objectives. 
The Petitioner, although referring to the Beneficiary's qualifications, including his degrees and "over 
four years of relevant work experience" did not identify the performance requirements of the position. 
To provide context for these duties, the Petitioner submitted an amendment extending its agreement 
with the end-client to December 31, 2020, and provided a work order identifying the Beneficiary, the 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1B worker the higher of either 
the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment" or the actual wage paid by the employer 
to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. Section 212(n)(1) 
of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
3 
service type as the Petitioner's "[c]ontract [p]rogramming," the service as "[p]rogrammer [a]nalyst -
[s]pec [s]kil [sic]," and the job title as "[p]rocess [e]ngineer." 
The work order, in addition to identifying the estimated end date as December 31, 2020, corresponding 
to the end-date in the petition request and on the certified LCA, also provided a brief description of 
the scope of work for the position as follows: 
Responsible for analysis, design, programming, testing and implementation for new 
and existing business application software, and production support for systems with 
medium complexity. 
The incumbent must be capable of working at a broad technical level in all phases of 
the application systems project life-cycle, and must be able to apply business 
knowledge and technical skills to systems development[.] 
The work order left the education level field blank and provided conflicting information in the "Years 
Experience" field, indicating "2" and also "1 Years." 
The description of the proposed duties at the end-client does not correspond to the Petitioner's broad 
description nor do the duties identified in the work order correspond to an "Operations Research 
Analysts" occupation, the occupation designated on the certified LCA. 
The Petitioner's response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) includes further conflicting 
information regarding the nature of the proposed position. In response, the Petitioner provided a copy 
of its "attestation to the Department of Labor regarding the requirements of this role" at Exhibit 2. 
Exhibit 2 is a copy of the Petitioner's ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment 
Certification. The application identifies the SOC code as 15-1132, "Software Development, 
Applications" at a level II wage, and the job title as senior business process analyst. The Petitioner 
lists the major fields of study for the position as "Computer Science, IT/IS, Business or Engineering" 
and the experience required for the position as 24 months. The description of job duties on the Form 
9089 included yet a third generic description of the proposed duties. 
The lack of consistent and detailed information regarding the position raises questions regarding the 
nature of the position and level of responsibility of this position within the company. The Petitioner 
does not provide adequate information to delineate how the different job descriptions translate to 
specific duties and responsibilities for the end-client and how such work comprises the duties of an 
"Operations Research Analysts" occupation. The record does not include sufficient consistent 
evidence of the Beneficiary's role and level of responsibility within the Petitioner's business 
operations. 5 Although the Petitioner's initial description of the proposed role included elements that 
could be considered to include some general tasks of an "Operations Research Analysts" occupation, 
the work order and the Petitioner's apparent revision of the role to a "Software Developers, 
5 We reviewed the Petitioner's 2017 case study wherein the Petitioner's strategy consultants implemented new processes 
for a healthcare organization and a 2019 case study wherein the Petitioner's scrum team closed 99 percent of open tickets 
for its client in a short time period. Although these case studies may demonstrate the Petitioner's past work for clients, it 
is not evidence that clarifies the Beneficiary's role within the organization or resolves the inconsistencies in the record 
regarding the proposed position. 
4 
Applications" position in response to the RFE casts significant doubt on the substantive nature of the 
position, and whether the position was accurately depicted on the certified LCA submitted with the 
petition. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-592 (BIA 1988). The 
Petitioner has not done so here. The conflicting information regarding the proposed job duties and the 
lack of clarifying evidence resolving the inconsistencies indicates that, more likely than not, the 
proposed position is not an "Operations Research Analysts" occupation, but rather a different 
occupation. 
Although we are not required to identify the occupation that most closely corresponds to the LCA we 
note that the record includes references to both "Software Developers, Applications," and "Computer 
Systems Analysts" occupations as positions that are similar to the position proffered here. Notably, 
the relevant prevailing wage for a level 11 SOC 15-1132 "Software Developers, Applications," 
position, ($72,779 annually) and for a level 11 SOC 15-1121 "Computer Systems Analysts" positions6 
($75,462 annually) are significantly higher than the relevant prevailing wage for a Level 11 "Operations 
Research Analysts" position ($64,355 annually). Such a wage disparity highlights the difference 
between these occupational categories. Without clarifying evidence demonstrating the purpose, role, 
and level of responsibilities for the Beneficiary and probative, consistent information regarding the 
context of the position, the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the proposed 
position and that the certified LCA supports the position described. 
Even if the proffered position includes some duties of an "Operations Research Analysts" occupation, 
which has not been established due to the inconsistent information regarding the position submitted 
for the record, such an occupation is not categorically a specialty occupation. For the Petitioner's 
information, we consider the information contained in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the duties and educational requirements of 
the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 7 The subchapter of the Handbook titled "How to Become 
an Operations Research Analyst" states, in relevant part, that while "some schools offer bachelor's 
and advanced degree programs in operations research, some analysts have degrees in other technical 
or quantitative fields, such as engineering, computer science, analytics, or mathematics."8 The 
Handbook indicates further that courses in various fields such as engineering, mathematics, computer 
science, economics, and political science are useful because "operations research is a multidisciplinary 
field with a wide variety of applications."9 Because the Handbook recognizes this occupation as 
multidisciplinary, and does not identify a specific discipline to perform the duties of the occupation, 
6 We observe that the Petitioner specifically identifies a different company's position for a "Computer Systems Analysts" 
position as similar to the proffered position. See the Occupational Information Network summary report for SOC code 
15-1121.00 - Computer Systems Analysts at https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1121.00 (last visited Oct. 16, 
2020). 
7 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to 
support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its 
equivalent, for entry. 
8 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Operations Research Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/math/operations-research-analysts.htm (last visited Oct. 16, 2020). 
9 Id. 
5 
the Handbook does not support a conclusion that these positions comprise an occupational group for 
which normally the minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner, who has the burden of proof in these matters must show 
that the particular position offered to the Beneficiary is among the positions for which a bachelor's 
degree in a specific discipline, or its equivalent, is required. In this matter the lack of consistency in 
the descriptions of duties, including the duties to be performed at the end-client, preclude further 
analysis regarding the substantive nature of the proffered position and a determination that the position 
is a specialty occupation and that the certified LCA corresponds to and supports the petition. 
Because the Petitioner has not met the threshold requirement of identifying the proposed duties of the 
proffered position and sufficiently establishing the Beneficiary's role within its business operations, 
and at the end-client, we cannot reach a conclusion regarding the substantive nature of the position 
and conclude the proffered position corresponds with the certified LCA.10 
B. Minimum Requirements 
The record also includes inconsistent information regarding the minimum requirements to perform the 
inconsistently described position. As noted above, the Petitioner initially did not specify its 
requirements to perform the proffered position. Rather the Petitioner simply referred to the 
Beneficiary's qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not 
the skill set or education of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. Thus, whether or not the Beneficiary in this case has completed a specialized 
course of study directly related to the proffered position is irrelevant to the issue of whether the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation, i.e., whether the duties of the proffered position require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a 
bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent.11 Section 214(i)(I) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Again, the Petitioner does not explain or elaborate on the nature of the duties 
of its particular position such that we may conclude that the duties require the substantive application 
of a body of specialized knowledge associated with a bachelor's degree in a specific discipline, or its 
equivalent.12 
10 The LCA serves as the critical mechanism for enforcing section 212(n)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(1). See Labor 
Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Nonimmigrants on H-1B Visas in Specialty Occupations 
and as Fashion Models; Labor Certification Process for Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States, 65 Fed. 
Reg. 80,110, 80,110-11 (proposed Dec. 20, 2000) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 655-56) (indicating that the wage 
protections in the Act seek "to protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate any economic incentive or advantage in hiring 
temporary foreign workers" and that this "process of protecting U.S. workers begins with [the filing of an LCA] with 
[DOL]."). While DOL is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to USCIS, DOL regulations 
note that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits branch, USCIS) is the department 
responsible for determining whether the content of an LCA filed for a particular Form 1-129 actually supports that 
petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that "the 
petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition .... " 
11 Similarly, the record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for 
high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. See Defensor, 201 F.3d 
at 387-88. 
12 Additionally, without a clear understanding of the proposed duties in relation to the Petitioner's business operations, we 
also cannot conclude that the certified LCA supports the petition. 
6 
When reviewing the record to ascertain the Petitioner's minimum requirements for the proffered 
position, we reviewed the Petitioner's attestation to the DOL regarding the requirements for this role. 
As noted above, the Petitioner identifies "Computer Science, IT/IS, Business or Engineering" as the 
acceptable degrees to perform the duties of its "Software Developers, Applications" occupation, the 
occupation it refers to as the proffered position. However, a bachelor's degree in business is 
inadequate to establish that a position qualifies as a specialty occupation. We have consistently stated 
that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a 
conclusion that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam 
Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. The Petitioner does not expound upon the focus of the business degree, 
specifically as it directly relates to the duties of the proposed position. 
The Petitioner also submits a letter, in response to the Director's RFE, confirming that it requires a 
bachelor's degree in Computer Science, IT/IS, Business, or Engineering for the process analyst 
position. The Petitioner refers to two other employees it asserts are employed as process analysts and 
provides copies of their degrees in information systems management and in technology project 
management. However, the Petitioner does not provide analysis of or explain how these two degrees 
are related to its requirements, and most importantly it does not provide evidence that these individuals 
have been assigned to the same end-client to perform similar duties. 
The Petitioner also refers to the end-client's job announcement for its senior business process analyst. 
The advertisement indicates that the minimum qualification to perform the position is a bachelor's 
degree in business, industrial/management engineering, or an IT related field or equivalent. The 
announcement notes that an acceptable substitution for this requirement is "5 years of experience in 
Process Improvement; to include process documentation or change, collection and analysis of related 
metrics, problem solving, and reduction in cycle time." The Petitioner does not explain how or 
otherwise support a claim that such a substitution is equivalent to a four-year bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty. Moreover, in additional bullet points under the minimum qualifications section, the 
end-client requires 5-10 years of related, progressive experience and 5-7 years managing small to 
medium projects across multi-functional teams. We also point out that these requirements appear 
inconsistent with the work order from the end-client that was initially submitted.13 
The Petitioner also refers to several companies, in addition to the end-client, which it claims are similar 
to it and thus should also be considered as establishing a degree requirement is common to the industry 
in similar companies for parallel positions. The Petitioner provides the attestation of one of these 
companies to the DOL for a "Computer Systems Analysts" position with the job title business process 
analyst. This attestation references computer science, as well as information technology, or 
engineering as the major fields of study to perform this company's computer systems analyst position. 
The Petitioner also includes three job advertisements for consideration. One indicates that a general 
BA/BS degree or equivalent experience is required; the second indicates a bachelor's degree in 
13 We recognize that the job announcement is for a senior business process analyst while the proffered position is identified 
as a process analyst. We observe, however, that the work order does not identify any academic requirement and 
confusingly indicates both 2 years and 1 year of experience are required for the process analyst. The lack of minimum 
requirements to perform the process analyst position and the acceptance of only a general degree or five years of experience 
without the academic degree to perform the position, under whichever title, demonstrates that neither position is a specialty 
occupation. 
7 
finance, business administration, economics, or other quantitative discipline is required; and, the third 
identifies the minimum requirement as a bachelor's degree in a related field, but does not identify a 
specific field. The acceptance of such a wide variety of experience and academic fields, without 
explanation or analysis does little to assist in establishing a common industry requirement even if the 
advertised positions are for a parallel position. 
We also reviewed the opinion authored b~ I College of EngineeringJ I 
University.I !repeats the Petitioner's initial description of the proposed position as outlined 
in the Petitioner's initial letter of support. I !opines that completion of a bachelor's degree 
program in "[i]ndustrial [e]ngineering, or a related area, or the equivalent provides the student with 
the core competencies and skills needed for a "p]rocess [a]nalyst with the responsibilities" listed in 
the description. I I does not clarify or define "related area" and does not explain what 
constitutes equivalent knowledge. Moreover, I I lists 10 courses he claims are required in an 
industrial engineering degree and identifies 3 courses (operations research, organizational 
management, and industrial design) as courses that may be taken in an industrial engineering degree 
program. He opines that these three courses convey the knowledge needed to competently handle the 
initial described duties. However.I I does not provide a source for his conclusion that the 
10 courses, including the three specific courses, he mentions are required in such a degree program. 
That is, while an operations research course or an organizational management course may be an 
elective in an industrial engineering program, there is no evidence supporting a conclusion that such 
courses are required. 
We do not disagree that an individual may take one, two, or several courses and gain sufficient knowledge 
to perform the duties of the proposed position, but neither the Petitioner nor I I demonstrate how 
an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. Further, while 
I I may draw inferences that such courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the 
position, we disagree with any inference that such a degree is required in order to perform the duties 
of the proffered position. Put simply, stating that a person with a bachelor's degree in industrial 
engineering could perform the duties of the proffered position is not the same as stating that such a 
degree is required to perform those duties. As such, I ~ analysis misconstrues the statutory 
and regulatory requirements of a specialty occupation. 
Finally, 1 I relies only on the Petitioner's broadly worded initial description of the proposed 
position'7,---___.__,I does not indicate that he reviewed the work order, or other evidence of the 
end-client's requirements to perform the work to which the Beneficiary would be assigned. 
Furthermore, I I does not address the Petitioner's own requirements to perform the duties of 
the position which include a business degree, a degree of general applicability. I I also does 
not support his conclusion with the results of formal surveys, research, statistics, or other objective 
quantifying information to substantiate his opinion.14 We may, in our discretion, use opinion 
statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron lnt'I, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 
14 1 I refers to the Handbook and to O*NET, as well as internet advertisements. Again, however, he does not address 
the number of acceptable fields, including general degrees or just experience without the clarifying delineation of how 
such experience is the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, included within these sources. 
8 
(Comm'r 1988). 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. Id. 
111. CONCLUSION 
The inconsistencies throughout the record prevent a determination of the substantive nature of the 
actual proposed position. Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not 
established that more likely than not, the Beneficiary will provide services in a specialty occupation 
under any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Moreover, the record does not establish that 
the Petitioner satisfied the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. Further, the 
record does not establish that the LCA supports the petition. 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. 
9