dismissed H-1B Case: It Consulting

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 0 8 2015 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
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. 
osenberg 
·ef, Administrative Appeals Office 
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. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
48-employee "IT Consulting" company established in . In order to employ the beneficiary in 
what it designates as a "Computer Programmer Analyst" position, the petitioner seeks to classify her 
as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant 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 Director reviewed the record of proceeding and determined that the petitioner did not establish 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Specifically, the Director stated that the petitioner had not 
established (1) that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in accordance with the 
applicable statutory and regulatory provisions; (2) that a valid employer-employee relationship 
exists between itself and the beneficiary; and (3) that it meets the regulatory filing requirements. 
The Director denied the petition. 
The record of proceeding contains: (1) the petitioner's Form I-129 and supporting documentation; 
(2) the Director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the 
Director's decision; and (5) the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) and supporting 
documentation. We reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision. 1 
For the reasons that will be discussed below, we agree with the Director's decision that the petitioner 
has not established eligibility for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the Director's decision will not be 
disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
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. 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1) defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as one that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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.F.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.F.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 
(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.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(1) 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 l&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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
therefore be read as providing supplemental 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 baccalaureate 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 partic.ular 
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. 
In ascertaining the intent of a petitioner, USCIS looks to the Form I-129 and the documents filed in 
support of the petition. It is only in this manner that the agency can determine the exact position 
offered, the location of employment, the proffered wage, et cetera. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(9)(i), the Director has the responsibility to consider all of the evidence submitted by a 
petitioner and such other evidence that he or she may independently require to assist his or her 
adjudication. Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H-lB petition 
involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by [ d]ocumentation ... or any other required 
evidence sufficient to establish ... that the services the beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty 
occupation." 
B. Proffered Position 
In the support letter, the petitioner states that the beneficiary will perform the following job duties in 
the proffered position: 
In general, as a Computer Programmer Analyst, the Beneficiary will confer with 
client management, customers, and staff to define system goals and then create 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
necessary roadmaps, graphs, models, and other materials to document and present 
the steps necessary to realize system goals. The Beneficiary will specify inputs to be 
accessed by the system, design the processing steps, and format the output to meet 
user needs. 
* * * 
[The beneficiary] will work as a Computer Programmer Analyst for us on[:] 
• Gathering requirements and documentation for application development[;] 
• Create SQL, PUSQL stored procedures and triggers[;] 
• Write SOL queries and stored procedures to collect data from databases[;] 
• Experience working with some kind of reporting tool[;] 
• Designs, modifies, develops, writes complex SQL queries[;] 
• Significant experience in managing multiple priorities[;] 
• Exceptional analytical skills, with strong attention to details and accuracy; as 
well as the ability to provide ad hoc analysis[.] 
The petitioner also states that the proffered position requires "at least a Bachelor's Degree (or its 
equivalent) in Computer Science or related fields." 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a letter from the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of 
indicating that the beneficiary "will be providing Computer Programmer Analyst 
services to the project ' and that she will be providing these 
services from the petitioner's office.L The letter further states that the beneficiary "will engage in 
the complex analysis, design, development, testing and implementation software 
systems/applications," and specifically lists the following tasks: 
• Gather requirements and documentation for application development[;] 
• Write SQL queries and stored procedures to collect data from databases[; and] 
• Designs, Modifies, Develops and Write complex SQL queries[.] 
CEO also states that the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's degree "in an 
area such as Computer Science, Engineering or another closely related field." 
C. Analysis 
In the instant case, we find that the petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the 
requirements of the proffered position. The petitioner initially claimed that the position requires a 
bachelor's degree in computer science or related fields. However, in response to the RFE, the 
2 Notably, the end-client's address is similar to the petitioner's office address. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
petitioner submitted a letter from the end-client, which states that the position requires a bachelor's 
degree in computer science, engineering, or another closely related field. No explanation for this 
inconsistency was provided. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in 
the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing 
to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Again, the petitioner has represented that the position requires a bachelor's degree in computer 
science and/or engineering. In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry 
and biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is 
recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of 
section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" 
would essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body 
of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a 
degree in two disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory 
requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the petitioner 
establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position such that the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an 
amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
In other words, while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," 
we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty 
occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than one closely 
related specialty. See section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act; 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii). This also includes 
even seeming! y disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of record establishes how each 
acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 
Again, the petitioner has represented that a bachelor's degree in computer science and/or 
engineering is acceptable. The issue here is that it is not readily apparent that these two fields of 
study are closely related or that the field of engineering is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position proffered in this matter. 
Here and as indicated above, the petitioner, who bears the burden of proof in this proceeding, does 
not establish either (1) that the disciplines are closely related fields, or (2) that the field of 
engineering is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the proffered position. Absent 
this evidence, it cannot be found that normally the minimum requirement for entry into the 
particular position proffered in this matter is a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, under the petitioner's own standards. 
As the evidence of record does not establish how these dissimilar fields of study form either a body 
of highly specialized knowledge or a specific specialty, or its equivalent, the petitioner's assertion 
that the job duties of this particular position can be performed by an individual with a bachelor's 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
degree in any of these fields suggests that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
Therefore, absent probative evidence of a direct relationship between the claimed degrees required 
and the duties and responsibilities of the position, it cannot be found that the proffered position 
requires, at best, anything more than a general bachelor's degree. 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)). 
The petitioner in this matter provided a list of the beneficiary's proposed duties.3 As observed 
above, USCIS in this matter must review the actual duties the beneficiary will be expected to 
perform to ascertain whether those duties require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, as required for classification as a specialty occupation. To accomplish 
that task in this matter, USCIS must analyze the actual duties in conjunction with the specific 
project(s) to which the beneficiary will be assigned. To allow otherwise, results in generic 
descriptions of duties that, while they may appear (in some instances) to comprise the duties of a 
specialty occupation, are not related to any actual services the beneficiary is expected to provide. 
In that regard, we have reviewed the information in the record regarding the petitioner's information 
technology consulting business and the claimed project upon which the beneficiary would work. 
Upon review of this information, we find that the record of proceeding lacks sufficient 
documentation regarding the actual work that the beneficiary will perform to sufficiently 
substantiate the claim that the petitioner has H-1B caliber work for the beneficiary for the period of 
employment requested in the petition. That is, the record does not include any work product or 
other documentary evidence to confirm that the petitioner has ongoing projects to which the 
beneficiary will be assigned. Thus, the petitioner has not provided the underlying documentation 
necessary to corroborate that the beneficiary would perform the claimed duties set out in the 
3 With regard to the duties, we note that the petitioner designated the proffered position on the LCA under 
the occupational category "Computer Programmers" as a Level II position. The "Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance" issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) provides a description of 
the wage levels. A Level II wage rate is described by DOL as follows: 
Level IT (qualified) wage rates are assigned to job offers for qualified employees who have 
attained , either through education or experience , a good understanding of the occupation. 
They perform moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. An indicator that the 
job request warrants a wage determination at Level II would be a requirement for years of 
education and/or experience that are generally required as described in the O*NET Job 
Zones. 
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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
petitioner's letter of support. Again, 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. at 165. 
Furthermore, as noted above, the petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the 
nonimmigrant visa petition. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(1). Evidence that the petitioner creates after the 
issuance of an RFE is not considered independent and objective evidence for establishing eligibility 
for the benefit sought. 
The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted m the H-1B 
program. For example, a 1998 proposed rule documented this position as follows: 
Historically, the Service has not granted H-1B classification on the basis of 
speculative, or undetermined, prospective employment. The H-1B classification is 
not intended as a vehicle for an alien to engage in a job search within the United 
States, or for employers to bring in temporary foreign workers to meet possible 
workforce needs arising from potential business expansions or the expectation of 
potential new customers or contracts. To determine whether an alien is properly 
classifiable as an H-1B nonimmigrant under the statute, .the Service must first 
examine the duties of the position to be occupied to ascertain whether the duties of 
the position require the attainment of a specific bachelor's degree. See section 214(i) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the "Act"). The Service must then determine 
whether the alien has the appropriate degree for the occupation. In the case of 
speculative employment, the Service is unable to perform either part of this 
two-prong analysis and, therefore, is unable to adjudicate properly a request for 
H-1B classification. Moreover, there is no assurance that the alien will engage in a 
specialty occupation upon arrival in this country. 
63 Fed. Reg. 30419, 30419- 30420 (June 4, 1998). 
Without detailed work orders, statements of work (SOW), or similar documentation describing the 
specific duties the petitioner requires the beneficiary to perform, as those duties relate to specific 
projects, users is unable to discern the nature of the position and whether the position indeed 
requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through a baccalaureate program. Without a meaningful job description within the context of non­
speculative employment, the petitioner may not establish any of the alternate criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 
214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
In the instant case, the petitioner submitted several documents in support of its petition, including an 
employment agreement between itself and the beneficiary, an SOW, a letter from the end-client, an 
organizational chart, and its financial documents. The evidence does not establish, however, the 
substantive nature of the work to be performed by the beneficiary. There is a lack of documentation 
regarding the claimed project and the beneficiary's specific role in the project. Here, the petitioner 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
does not establish that the petition was filed for non-speculative work for the beneficiary that 
existed as of the time of the petition's filing. There is insufficient documentary evidence in the 
record corroborating the availability of work for the beneficiary for the requested period of 
employment and, consequently, what the beneficiary would do and how this would impact the 
circumstances of his relationship with the petitioner. 
For instance, upon review of the employment agreement, we note that it does not mention the " 
' project. In addition, the agreement states "irrespective of any client 
location or project that you may be assigned to, during the duration of your employment...you shall 
at all times remain an employee of [the petitioner]." According to the agreement, the beneficiary 
may be placed at various locations and assigned to various projects and, thus, not necessarily at the 
petitioner's office location and the ' " project as indicated on the 
Form I-129. 
Further, upon review, we find that the SOW lacks the necessary level of details regarding the 
beneficiary's claimed assignment. For example, while the SOW broadly describes the activities to 
be completed and the overall positions constituting the petitioner's "team," it does not illuminate 
what specific tasks will be performed, which team member(s) will perform them, and the manner 
and means through which they will be achieved. In 
fact, the SOW does not identify the beneficiary 
or any of the individuals constituting the petitioner's "team" by name. Furthermore, the SOW 
indicates that "[t]he team will consist of 10 Developers, 2 Testers and 1 Architect." Notably, it does 
not list the proffered position of computer programmer analyst as being part of the "team." The 
SOW also specifies the delivery due date as August 31, 2016. Thus, the SOW indicates that the 
project will end prior to the beneficiary's validity period. 4 A petition must be filed for non­
speculative work for the beneficiary, for the entire period requested, that existed as of the time of 
the petition's filing. USCIS regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for 
the benefit it is seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.P.R. 103.2(b)(1). A visa petition 
may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after the petitioner or beneficiary 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248. 
The letter from the end-client, too, is insufficient, as it does not describe the particular duties of the 
beneficiary in detail. It lists the beneficiary's services in general and vague terms that do not appear 
to be specifically tied to the " project. The letter does not further explain what 
each of these duties specifically entails, and how each duty specifically relates to the activities and 
timelines outlined in the SOW. 5 
4 The end-client's letter vaguely states that this project is "an ongoing, long-term project that is expected to 
last at least the next three years." However, without additional explanation, including why this statement 
differs from the information found in the SOW, the end-client's letter is insufficient evidence. 
5 We note that, as recognized by the court in Defensor, supra, where the work is to be performed for entities 
other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. See Defensor v. 
Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-388. 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Nor has the petitioner submitted sufficient, credible explanations of the beneficiary's specific tasks 
with respect to the ' ' project. In fact, the petitioner's descriptions 
of the proffered position and its constituent duties raise additional questions regarding the nature of 
the proffered position. For example, the petitioner described the proposed duties on the Form I-129 
Supplement H as "render[ing] computer programming and system analysis duties. Provide 
technical support." Likewise, the petitioner stated in its initial support letter that the beneficiary 
"will confer with client management, customers, and staff to define system goals and then create 
necessary 
roadmaps, graphs, models, and other materials," and "will specify inputs to be accessed 
by the system, design the processing steps, and format the output to meet user needs." The 
employment agreement lists her duties as including "understanding and analyzing the business 
requirements, designing and developing software solutions as per specific requirements." However, 
the letter from contains no such job duties for the beneficiary. It is incumbent upon 
the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence, and 
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. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 591. 
Based on the lack of detailed information and documentation regarding the " 
' project and the specific duties the beneficiary will 
perform on it, we cannot find that 
the petitioner has met its burden of proof in establishing that the beneficiary will be employed to 
exclusively perform in-house services on this project, as claimed. Thus, we find that the evidence 
of record is insufficient to establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
beneficiary. 
The failure to establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the beneficiary 
consequently precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.P.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 4.6 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities 
using the beneficiary's services. !d. at 384. 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. 
6 Even if the proffered position had been established as one located within the "Computer Programmers" 
occupational category (the occupational category certified on the submitted LCA), we note that the U.S. 
Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (the Handbook) specifically states that "some 
employers hire workers with an associate's degree" for such positions. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
Accordingly, as the evidence of record 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. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied. 
III. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE 
The Director also found that the petitioner did not establish that it will have a valid employer­
employee with the beneficiary. 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 and, given this specific lack of evidence, the 
petitioner does not establish 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 does 
not establish 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.F.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-1B nonimmigrant 
worker). Again, 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. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed and the petition must be 
denied for this additional reason. 7 
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
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), aff'd, 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 
Labor Statistics, Occup ational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., "Computer Programmers," 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-programmers.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Jun. 26, 2015). Th e Handbook therefore would not support the proposition that the position is a 
specialty occupation. 
7 The Director also denied the petition for not meeting the regulatory filing requirements with regard to the 
$2,000 fee imposed under Public Law 111-230. On appeal, the petitioner 
states that it did not employ more 
than 50 individual s at the time the petition was filed . As the petition must be denied and the appeal 
dismissed for the reasons discussed above, we will not address this issue at this time. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
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. 8 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 of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8 Since the identified bases for denial are dispositive of the petitioner's appeal, we will not address other 
grounds of ineligibility we observe in the record of proceeding.