dismissed H-1B Case: It Consulting

(b)(6)
DATE: 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
JUM 0 8 2015 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(IS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(I5)(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. § 1 03.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 1-2908) 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. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The 
petitioner subsequently filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The Director granted the 
motion, but again found that the petitioner had not demonstrated that it would employ the beneficiary in 
a specialty occupation position. The Director affirmed the previous decision and denied the visa 
petition again. The petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
I. PROCEDURALAND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
1 05-employee "IT Consulting" firm established in In order to employ the beneficiary in what 
it designates as an ''Oracle Database Administrator" position, the petitioner seeks to classify him 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. § 110l(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b). 
The Director found the initial evidence insufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought, and 
issued a Request for Evidence (RFE). Thereafter, the petitioner responded to the Director's RFE. 
The Director denied the petition, finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the 
proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation position. On motion, the 
petitioner asserted that the visa petition was incorrectly denied. The Director issued an additional 
RFE, to which the petitioner did not respond. The Director again found the evidence insufficient to 
establish that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation position and 
denied the visa petition on that same basis. On appeal, the petitioner again asserts that the Director's 
basis for denial was erroneous and contends that the petitioner satisfied all evidentiary requirements. 
In support of these contentions, the petitioner submitted a brief and additional evidence. 
As will be discussed below, we have determined that the Director did not err in her decision to deny 
the petition on the specialty occupation issue. Accordingly, the Director's decision will not be 
disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. We base our decision upon 
our review of the entire record of proceeding, which includes: (1) the petitioner's Form 1-129 and 
the supporting documentation filed with it; (2) the service center's RFE; (3) the petitioner's response 
to the RFE; ( 4) the Director's denial letter; (5) the petitioner's motion; (6) the second RFE issued by 
the service center; (7) the Director's decision on the motion; and (8) the Form I-290B and the 
petitioner's submissions on appeal. 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted to support the visa pehtwn states that the 
proffered position is an Oracle Database Administrator position, and that it corresponds to Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) code and title 15-1141, Database Administrators, from the 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET). The LCA further states that the proffered position is a 
wage Level I, entry-level, position. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
In a letter dated April 1, 2013, signing as the petitioner's president, provided the 
following description of the duties of the proffered position: 
[The beneficiary] will develop and program software systems using various hardware 
and operating systems. This will include converting symbolic statements of 
scientific, engineering, and other technical problem formulations and administrative 
data to detailed logical flow charts for coding into computer language. He will 
develop and write computer programs to store, locate, and retrieve specific 
documents, data, and information, in addition to developing or modifying restart 
procedures and writing macros and sub-routines to be used by other programming 
personnel. 
Using his knowledge of software development, program construction, distributed 
processing and familiarity of debugging tools, he will assist in analyzing business 
procedures and problems to redefine data and convert them into programmable forms 
of EDP, along with planning and preparing technical reports, memoranda, and 
instructional manuals to document program development. 
[The beneficiary] may also be called upon the handle the following duties: 
� Developing and programming computer software applications using various 
software and interface with the technical staff in the complex programming 
needs and document modification concerning the systems software; - 30% 
� Responsible for improvements in software computer utilization and determine 
necessity for modifications; - 1 0% 
� Reviewing software programs for compliance with company standards and 
requirements and assisting in identifying deficiencies of computer runs and 
perform specialized programming assignments; - 5% 
� Developing and enhancing the software systems for wider applications and 
customize it for specific requirements; - 5% 
� Using RDBMS to log system change orders and analyze, develop and 
implement new applications with GUI and analyze software requirements to 
determine feasibility of design within time and cost restraints; -15% 
� Identifying deficiencies, troubleshooting problems and supporting user needs 
with professional knowledge for test planning, defect tracing and provide 
assistance in use ofRDBMS; - 10% 
� Analysis and Design of system which includes Preparation of Process Flow 
Diagrams, Entity Relationship Diagrams, File design, Program Specification 
and Design document; - 1 0% 
� Database and application analysis/ design logical and physical database; - 5% 
>- Interacting with other technical staff in researching and interpreting technical 
data; -5% 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Y Assisting as part of the team to resolve. technical problems requiring good 
judgment and creativity in developing solutions.- 5% 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
The issue is whether the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it will employ 
the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. 
A. The Law 
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. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1)] requires 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 [(2)] requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualifY as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the mm1mum 
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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i )(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Afart 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 �fW­
F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing 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. Chert�ff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in 
a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-lB petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly been 
able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that Congress contemplated 
when it created the H-lB visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. Analysis 
(b)(6)
lv'ON-P RECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The petitioner claims in the LCA that the proffered position corresponds to SOC code and title 
15-1141, Database Administrators, from O*NET. We recognize the Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), cited by the petitioner, as an authoritative source on 
the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.' We 
reviewed the chapter of the Handbook entitled "Database Administrators," including the sections 
regarding the typical duties and requirements for this occupational category. The Handbook states 
the following with regard to the duties of database administrators: 
What Database Administrators Do 
Database administrators use specialized software to store and organize data, such as 
financial information and customer shipping records. They make sure that data are 
available to users and are secure from unauthorized access. 
Duties 
Database administrators typically do the following: 
• Identify user needs to create and administer databases 
• Ensure that the database operates efficiently and without error 
• Make and test modifications to the database structure when needed 
• Maintain the database and update permissions 
• Merge old databases into new ones 
• Backup and restore data to prevent data loss 
• Ensure that organizational data is secure 
Database administrators, often called DBAs, make sure that data analysts can easily 
use the database to find the information they need and that the system performs as it 
should. DBAs sometimes work with an organization's management to understand the 
company's data needs and to plan the goals of the database. Database administrators 
are responsible for backing up systems to prevent data loss in case of a power outage 
or other disaster. They also ensure the integrity of the database, guaranteeing that the 
data stored in it come from reliable sources. 
Some DB As oversee the development of new databases. They have to determine what 
the needs of the database are and who will be using it. Database administrators often 
plan security measures, making sure that data are secure from unauthorized access. 
Many databases contain personal or financial information, making security important. 
The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at 
http://www.bls.gov/oco/. Our references to the Handbook are to the 201 4-2015 edition available online. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Many database administrators are general-purpose DBAs and have all these duties. 
However, some DBAs specialize in certain tasks that vary with the organization and 
its needs. Two common specialties are as follows: 
System DBAs are responsible for the physical and technical aspects of a database, 
such as installing upgrades and patches to fix program bugs. They typically have a 
background in system architecture and ensure that the firm's database management 
systems work properly. 
Application DBAs support a database that has been designed for a specific 
application or a set of applications, such as customer service software. Using complex 
programming languages, they may write or debug programs and must be able to 
manage the aspects of the applications that work with the database. They also do all 
the tasks of a general DBA, but only for their particular application. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
Database Administrators ," http://www . bls. gov/ooh/computer-and -information-technology /database­
administrators.htm#tab-2 (last visited June 5, 2015). 
We observe that, as described in the Handbook, the duties of database administrators relate to the 
creation and administration of databases. However, the duties of the proffered position include 
analyzing, developing, programming, improving, customizing, and troubleshooting computer 
applications. Specifically, the beneficiary's duties include "developing and programming computer 
software applications," "improvements in software computer utilization, " "identifying deficiencies, 
trouble shooting problems and supporting user needs," and "developing and enhancing the software 
systems for wider applications ." Notably, only five percent of the beneficiary's time would be spent 
on "Database and application analysis/ design logical and physical database." 
On appeal, the petitioner provided a job description for an Oracle database administrator from the 
Oracle9i Database Administrator's Guide Release 2 (9.2) from Oracle. The guide describes the 
Oracle database administrator's duties as follows: 
• Installing and upgrading the Oracle server and application tools 
• Allocating system storage and planning future storage requirements for the 
database system 
• Creating primary database storage structures (tablespaces) after application 
developers have designed an application 
• Creating primary objects (tables, views, indexes) once application developers 
have designed an application 
• Modifying the database structure, as necessary, from information given by 
application developers 
• Enrolling users and maintaining system security 
• Ensuring compliance with your Oracle license agreement 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
• Controlling and monitoring user access to the database 
• Monitoring and optimizing the performance of the database 
• Planning for backup and recovery of database information 
• Maintaining archived data on tape 
• Backing up and restoring the database 
• Contacting Oracle Corporation for technical support 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Again, these duties are closely related to administering databases, whereas the duties of the proffered 
position are largely comprised of analyzing, developing, programming, improving, customizing, and 
troubleshooting computer applications. 
The petitioner has asserted that the beneficiary would work as a database administrator, but the 
duties for the proffered position appear to vary from the Handbook and the Oracle's job description 
for the database administrator. 2 Under these circumstances, where the duties described are 
inconsistent with authoritative sources, the petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the 
duties the beneficiary would actually perform if the visa petition were approved. 
For H-lB approval, the petitioner must demonstrate that a need for an H-IB employee exists when 
the petition is filed and must substantiate that it has H-lB caliber work for the beneficiary for the 
period of employment requested in the petition. That is to say, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to 
demonstrate it has sufficient work to require the services of a person with at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, to perform duties at a level that require the theoretical and 
2 We note that the duties presented by the petitioner appear to encompass duties described in several 
occupational categories in the Handbook, which include "Computer Systems Analysts"-SOC (ONET/OES) 
Code 15-1121, "Computer Programmers"-SOC (ON ET/OES) Code 15-1131, and "Software Developers, 
Applications"-SOC (ONET/OES) Code 15-1132. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/home.htm (last visited June 5, 
2015). 
Notably, the prevailing wage for "Computer Systems Analysts" in the Texas 
Metropolitan Division, from 07/2013 to 06/2014, was $57,346; for "Computer Programmers" was $45,282; 
and for "Software Developers, Applications" was $62,379 per year. See 
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code=15-113: ;year=1 4&source= I, 
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code=l5-ll3 ;year= I 4&source= I, and 
http://www. flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code= 15-112 ;year= I 4&source= I (last 
visited June 5, 2015). 
According to the Department of Labor's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, " when a proffered 
position is a combination of occupations, the petitioner should select the relevant occupational code for the 
highest paying occupational category. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin.; Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009.pdf. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
practical application of at least a bachelor's degree level of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
in a specific specialty for the period specified in the petition. 
As we observed above, the petitioner has not provided a detailed and consistent description of the 
duties the beneficiary will be expected to perform. Further, the record lacks credible evidence that 
when the petitioner filed the petition, the petitioner had secured work of any type for the beneficiary 
to perform during the requested period of employment. 
In an RFE issued in this matter, the service center requested evidence that petitioner had specialty 
occupation work available for the entire period of requested employment. In a letter dated 
December 5, 2013, counsel responded, "Please note that the petitioner is bidding for a future project 
to assign the beneficiary in a specialty occupation work." The petitioner did not provide evidence of 
any projects to assign the beneficiary valid for the period of requested employment when it filed the 
visa petition. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary "is working only at [its] location" 
and its support for Oracle database to its clients are "continual and on-going in the regular course of 
[its] business." However, the petitioner did not submit documentary evidence to substantiate its 
ongoing projects. 
users regulations require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time 
the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). A visa petition may not be approved at a future date 
after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. A1atter qf Afichelin Tire 
Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm'r 1978). Here, the petitioner did not submit sufficient credible 
documentary evidence that it had specialty occupation work available for the beneficiary for the 
duration of the requested time period. 3 
3 The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-1 B program. For 
example, a 1998 proposed rule documented this position as follows: 
Historically, the Service has not granted H-1 B classification on the basis of speculative, or 
undetermined, prospective employment. The H-1 B 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-1 B 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-1 B 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). While a petitioner is certainly permitted to change its 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
The petitioner's failure to establish the substantive nature of the work to be perfom1ed by the 
beneficiary precludes a finding that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that 
determines (1) the normal minimum educational requirement for the particular position, which is the 
focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus 
appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 
2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the 
second alternate prong of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a 
degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization 
and complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
Furthermore, in a letter dated April l, 2013, signing as the petitioner's president, stated 
that "a Bachelor's or Master's degree in Computer Science, Information Systems, Management 
Information Systems, Electrical/Electronics Engineering, Physics, or a closely related field, is virtually 
indispensib le" for the proffered position. 
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)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
In the instant case, absent evidence demonstrating that all of the fields listed are directly related to 
the duties of the proffered position, a requirement of a degree in computer science, information 
systems, management Information systems, electrical engineering, electronics engineering, physics, or a 
closely related field does not indicate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation position. 
The petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
IV. ADDITIONAL BASIS - EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP 
intent with regard to non-speculative employment, e.g., a change in duties or job location, it must nonetheless 
document such a material change in intent through an amended or new petition in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h )(2)(i)(E). 
----------- -------------- -
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
We will briefly address the issue of whether or not the petitioner qualifies as a United States 
employer with standing to file the H-lB petition. As detailed above, the record of proceeding lacks 
sufficient documentation evidencing what exactly the beneficiary would do for the period of time 
requested or where exactly and for whom the beneficiary would be providing services. Given this 
specific lack of evidence, the petitioner did 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 did not establish whether it 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 an 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-lB nonimmigrant 
worker). As previously discussed, there is insufficient evidence detailing where the beneficiary will 
work, the specific projects to be performed by the beneficiary, or for which company the beneficiary 
will ultimately perform these services. Therefore, the director's decision is affirmed, and the petition 
will be denied for this additional reason. 
V. 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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.