dismissed H-1B Case: Law

(b)(6)
MAY 2 8 2015 
DATE: 
IN RE: 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 101(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: 
NO REPRESENTATIVE OF RECORD 
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. 
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 petition. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
three-employee "Law Firm" established in In order to employ the beneficiary in what it 
designates as a full -time "Law Clerk" position at an annual salary of $37,383, the petitioner seeks to 
classify her as a nonimmigrant worker m 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 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 reviewed the information and determined that the petitioner failed to establish 
eligibility for the benefit sought. The Director denied the petition, finding that the evidence of 
record did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The petitioner 
now files this appeal, asserting that the Director's decision was erroneous. 
We base our decision upon our review of the entire record of proceeding, which includes: (1) the 
petitioner's Form I-129 and the supporting documentation filed with it; (2) the Director's request for 
additional evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the Director's letter denying 
the petition; and (5) the petitioner's appeal and submissions on appeal.1 
As will be discussed below, we have determined that the director did not err in her decision to deny 
the petition. Beyond the director's decision, we have identified an additional ground of ineligibili ty, 
i.e., that the submitted Labor Condition Application (LCA) does not correspond to the petition. For 
these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The LCA submitted to support the visa petition states that the proffered position corresponds to 
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code and occupation title 23-1012, Judicial Law 
Clerks, from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). The LCA further states that the 
proffered position is a Level I, entry-level, position .. 
In a letter dated March 26, 2014 submitted with the petition, the petitioner described itself as a "law 
office [which] has engaged in various legal services across the US, Asia, especially in China, Hong 
Kong and South Korea." The petitioner asserted that it is seeking to employ the beneficiary as a law 
clerk to perform the following duties: 
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 
[The beneficiary] will assist the lawyers by performing legal analysis, researching and 
preparing legal files or documents. She will also research laws, court decisions, 
documents, opinions, briefs, or other information related to cases before lawyers go to 
court. She will provide assistance in all kinds of legal and administrative matters to 
the team of legal services, including participate [sic] in client meetings to provide 
multi-language interactions with Asian language speaking clients, prepare briefs, legal 
memoranda, or statements of issues involved in cases, including appropriate 
suggestions or recommendations. 
The petitioner further stated that the "specific duties undertaken by the law clerk include the 
following": 
(1) Exploring and studying legal documents for determining causes of action, 
examining law of cases and facts, and preparing cases; (2) Preparing affidavits of 
documents, maintaining case correspondence and document files; (3) Researching, 
analyzing law sources for preparing drafts of briefs for approval, review, and advance 
use by attorney; (4) Evaluating current procedures to determine process that is more 
efficient; (5) Reviewing and filing petitions, pleadings, and other legal documents 
pertinent to court procedures; (6) Preparing closing statements of real estate and 
assisting in closing procedure; (7) Evaluating and inventorying personal and real 
property for estate planning; (8) Communicating and arbitrating dispute[s] between 
different parties; [and] (9) Helping lawyers in the translation of legal documents and 
interpreting at client meetings. 
As to the educational requirements of the proffered position, the petitioner stated: "As with most law 
clerk position [sic] at the law office, the entry requirement for performance of the job duties is a 
bachelor's degree in related fields such as law, political science or government service." The 
petitioner also stated in that letter that the beneficiary, who "obtained a bachelor degree of Law 
(LL.B.) from University," a "Master Degree of Law" from University," and 
an LL.M. graduate of the University of is "qualified to fulfill the functions of 
law clerk." 
The petitioner provided additional explanations regarding the minimum educational requirements for 
the proffered position in a letter dated July 20, 2014 which was submitted in response to the RFE. In 
particular, the petitioner stated that "a baccalaureate or higher degree in the field of law is normally 
the minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position." Later on in the same letter, the 
petitioner explained that "[a]s a leading law firm, to ensure the quality of our service, we require a 
master's degree for all our law clerks." 
On appeal, the petitioner states that it requires at a m1mmum a "master's degree in Law" and 
thereafter stated in the same brief that "[w]ithout the Master's of Law Degree and a foreign Bachelor 
of Law degree, a person cannot properly execute all the duties." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. The Law 
To meet its burden of proof in establishing the proffered position as a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the beneficiary meets the following 
statutory and regulatory requirements. 
Section 214(i)(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 
(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. 
(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 Mart Corp. v. Cartier Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction of 
language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter of W­
F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result 
in particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F. R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory 
or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing 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), 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 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 rely 
simply upon a proffered position's title. The specific duties of the position, combined with the 
nature of the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. users must 
examine the ultimate employment of the beneficiary, and determine whether the position qualifies 
as a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d at 384. The critical 
element is not the title of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the 
position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the 
minimum for entry into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
B. Analysis 
We first find that the SOC code and title of 23-1012.00, Judicial Law Clerks is not appropriate for 
the proffered position. We make this finding based upon the nature of the petitioner as a private law 
firm. As is self-evident from the title of the occupational classification, a "Judicial Law Clerk" is a 
position within the judiciary branch of government. According to the O*NET OnLine Summary 
Report for the occupation 23-1012.00, Judicial Law Clerks, the primary duty of a "Judicial Law 
Clerk" is to "[a]ssist judges in court or by conducting research or preparing legal documents." 
O*NET Summary Report, 23-1012.00, Judicial Law Clerks, 
http://www .onetonline.org/link/summary/23-1012.00 (last visited May 19, 2015). There is 
insufficient evidence in the record to establish that the "Judicial Law Clerks" occupational 
classification can reasonably be expanded to include positions within private law firms such as the 
petitioner. Notably, the Director's decision specifically raised this issue, but the petitioner did not to 
address it on appeal. 
We also find that the evidence of record is insufficient to establish the substantive nature of the 
proffered position. 
We agree with the Director that many of the proffered duties are consistent with those of a paralegal 
position. For instance, the proffered duties of exploring/studying documents for causes of action, 
examining law of cases and facts, preparing cases, preparing affidavits, maintaining case 
correspondence and document files, filing petitions, pleadings, and other legal documents, and 
preparing real estate closing statements, are all comparable to the duties generally performed by 
paralegals.2 
The petitioner has not provided persuasive explanations differentiating the proffered duties from 
those of a paralegal. On appeal, the petitioner highlighted the proffered duties of "preparing legal 
documents such as petitions, legal complaints, and affidavits" as distinguishing the proffered 
position from a paralegal position. As previously noted, however, these duties are consistent with 
the duties generally performed by paralegals ? Furthermore, the petit ioner stated that "[t]he most 
important difference between paralegal and the position offered is that candidate as a law clerk can 
2 The O*NET Details Report for the occupation "23-2011.00, Paralegals and Legal Assistants" lists duties for 
paralegals as including: prepare affidavits or other documents, such as legal correspondence; prepare legal 
documents, including briefs, pleadings, appeals, wills, contracts, and real estate closing statements; file 
pleadings with court clerk; gather and analyze research data, such as statutes, decisions, and legal articles, 
codes, and documents; and investigate facts and law of cases. O*NET Details Report, 23-2011.00, 
Paralegals and Legal Assistants, http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/23-2011.00 (last visited May 19, 
2015). 
3 O*NET specifically lists the core duties of paralegals as including the preparation of affidavits and other 
legal documents. !d. at http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/23-2011.00 (last visited May 19, 2015). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
conduct legal analysis of various cases, and can provide legal advices [sic] to clients under the 
supervision of supervising attorneys, which cannot· be performed by a paralegal. "4 However, the 
particular duty of providing legal advice to clients raises further questions as to the proffered 
position's substantive nature. 
More specifically, the occupational classification chosen by the petitioner, 23-1012, Judicial Law 
Clerks, does not include the duty of providing legal advice to clients.5 Instead, the duty of providing 
legal advice to clients more appropriately corresponds to the SOC occupational code and title 23 -
1011.00, Lawyers.6 Furthermore, the petitioner has not explained and documented how the 
beneficiary could legally engage in the practice of law, without evidence that she is licensed to 
4 While the petitioner's initial description did not expressly include the job duty of "provid[ing] legal ad vices 
to clients," the petitioner initially stated that the beneficiary's job duties would include "provid[ing] assistance 
in all kinds of legal and administrative matters to the team of legal services." The petitioner also stated that 
the beneficiary would "explain the conflict of interests and all potential consequences aris[ing] out of the 
retainment" to clients. These broadly stated duties could be viewed as falling within the overarching job duty 
of "provid[ing] legal ad vices to clients." 
If, however, "provid[ing] legal advices to clients" represents a new job duty presented for the first time on 
appeal, then we note that the petitioner cannot materially change the proffered position's job responsibilities. 
The petitioner must establish that the position offered to the beneficiary when the petition was filed merits 
classification for the benefit sought. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg. Comm'r 
1978). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition 
conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
5 O*NET does not list any duties involving providing legal advice to clients for judicial law clerks. See 
O*NET Details Report, 23-1012.00, Judicial Law Clerks, http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/23-1012.00 
(last visited May 19, 2015). 
6 The O*NET Summary Report for 23-1011.00, Lawyers, summarizes the duties of lawyers as including the 
representation of clients in legal proceedings, or advising clients on legal transactions. See O*NET 
Summary Report, 23-1011.00, Lawyers, http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/23-1011.00 (last visited 
May 19, 2015). 
Likewise, the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) describes the 
duties of lawyers as to "advise and represent individuals ... on legal issues and disputes." U.S. Dep't of 
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., "Lawyers," 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/lawyers.htm#tab-2 (last visited May 19, 2015). We also recognize the 
Handbook as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the 
Internet, at http://www.bls.gov/oco/. All of our references to the Handbook are to the 2014 - 2015 edition 
available online. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
practice law in the United States.7 We note that the prevailing wage for lawyers is significantly 
higher than the wage for judicial law clerks.8 
In light of the above, including the inapplicability of the "Judicial Law Clerks" occupational 
classification and the similarities of the proffered duties to those of paralegals and lawyers, we 
cannot determine the substantive nature of the position. A crucial aspect of this matter is whether 
the petitioner has adequately and consistently described the duties of the proffered position, such 
that users may discern the nature of the position and whether the position indeed 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. The petitioner has not done so here. 
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). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of 
course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in 
support of the visa petition. !d. 
Third, we find that the petitioner has provided inconsistent and confusing statements regarding the 
minimum educational requirements for the proffered position. The petitioner has simultaneously 
claimed that the position requires at least a "bachelor's degree in related fields such as law, political 
science or government service"; a baccalaureate degree specifically in the field of law; a Master's 
Degree in Law; and a "Master's of Law Degree and a foreign Bachelor of Law degree." The 
7 The Handbook states that "[t]o practice law in any state, a person must be admitted to its bar under rules 
established by the jurisdiction's highest court." U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational 
Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., Lawyers, http://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/lawyers.htm#tab-4 (last visited May 
19, 2015). 
8 To illustrate, the Level I prevailing wage for lawyers in the NY -NJ MSA 
(where the petitioner's office is located), for the period 7/2013 - 6/2014, is $82,472 annually, which is far 
higher than the petitioner's proffered wage of $37,383 per year. For more information regarding the wages 
for "Lawyers"- SOC (ONET/OES Code) 23-1011, in the NY-NJ MSA, for 
the period 7/2013 6/2014, see http://flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code=23-
1011&area=35644&year=14&source=1 (last visited May 19, 2015). 
The Level I prevailing wage for judicial law clerks in the same county during the same period is $42,723 per 
year. For more information regarding the wages for "Judicial Law Clerks"- SOC (ONET/OES Code) 23-
1012, m County, NY MSA, for the period 7/2013 6/2014, see 
http:/ /flcdatacen ter .com/OesQuickResults .aspx? code=23-1 0 12&area=35 644& year= 14&source= 1 (last visited 
May 19, 2015). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
petitioner has not submitted a sufficient, credible explanation for these inconsistent statements. For 
instance, even after the petitioner acknowledges that "the United States doesn't offer Bachelor 
Degree in law, [and thus] the minimum law degree is Master Degree," the petitioner nevertheless 
goes on to reiterate that the proffered position can be satisfied by a baccalaureate degree. The 
petitioner also relies upon vacancy announcements in which the minimum educational requirements 
include a "Bachelor's Degree" (from LLP) and a "BS or BA 
Degree and completion of one year of law school" (from 
LLP). The petitioner's inconsistent requirements for the proffered position further undermine the 
petitioner's credibility with regard to the actual nature of the proffered position. 
Again, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence. !d. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of 
course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in 
support of the visa petition. !d. 
As discussed above, we cannot determine the substantive .nature of the proffered position. 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. 
Accordingly, as the petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C. P.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), 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. 
C. Opinion Letter 
We will briefly address why we decline to regard the letter from a retired law 
professor at Law School who previously taught the beneficiary, as probative evidence of 
the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
Professor attested that the duties of the proffered position "require an expertise normally 
possessed only by people who have received professional education at a reputable law school." 
Professor further attested that the skills needed to perform these duties "would not 
normally be possessed by a paralegal who has not received professional education. These are tasks 
normally performed by young lawyers in law firms." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
While Professor concludes that the proffered duties require "professional education at a 
reputable law school" and are ''normally performed by young lawyers in law firms," he does not 
explain the factual basis for his assertions. As such, these are conclusory statements that have little 
to no probative value. 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)). 
Moreover, we note that Professor states that the duties of the proffered position are 
normally performed by lawyers, yet his letter does not indicate whether he is aware of the 
petitioner's designation of the proffered position under the "Judicial Law Clerks" occupational 
classification and the petitioner's statements that the proffered position can be satisfied by a 
bachelor's degree. We also note the numerous inconsistencies regarding the duties of the proffered 
position and its various educational requirements of which Professor does not seem to be 
aware. We consider these to be significant omissions, in that it suggests an incomplete review of the 
position in question and a faulty basis for his conclusions. 
For all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Professor opinion letter is not 
probative evidence to establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. We may, in our 
discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. However, where an 
opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to 
accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 19 I& N Dec. 791 
(Comm'r 1988). 
IV. THELCA 
Beyond the decision of the Director, the petition must also be denied due to the failure to provide a 
certified LCA that corresponds to the petition. Specifically, the LCA submitted with the petition 
was certified for a position falling under the occupational classification of SOC (O*NET/OES) 
Code "23-1012, Judicial Law Clerks." As determined supra, however, this occupational 
classification is not appropriate fat the proffered position within the scope of the petitioner's 
operations as a private law firm. 
While the Department of Labor (DOL) is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are 
submitted to USCIS, DOL regulations note that the U.S. 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 I-129 actually supports that petition. See 20 
C. P.R. § 655. 705 (b), which states, in pertinent part (emphasis added): 
For H-1B visas ... DHS accepts the employer's petition (DHS Form I-129) with 
the DOL certified LCA attached. In doing so, the DHS determines whether the 
petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, whether the 
occupation named in the [LCA] is a specialty occupation or whether the 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
individual is a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability, and whether the 
qualifications of the nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements of H-1B visa 
classification. 
The regulation at 20 C.F. R. § 655. 705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that an LCA actually supports 
the H-1B petition filed on behalf of the beneficiary. Here, the petitioner has not submitted a valid 
LCA that has been certified for the proper occupational classification, and the petition must be 
denied for this additional reason. 
V. CONC LUSION 
The evidence of record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. Beyond the director's decision, the evidence of record does not establish that the LCA 
corresponds to the petition. Accordingly, 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.7 
An application or petition that does not comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by us even if the service center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 
2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). 
Moreover, when we deny a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it shows that we abused our discretion with respect to all of the enumerated 
grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1037, affd, 345 F.3d 
683; see also BDPCS, Inc. v. Fed. Communications Comm'n, 351 F.3d 1177, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 2003) 
("When an agency offers multiple grounds for a decision, we will affirm the agency so long as any 
one of the grounds is valid, unless it is demonstrated that the agency would not have acted on that 
basis if the alternative grounds were unavailable."). 
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. 12 7, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied. 
7 As these issues preclude approval of the petition, we will not address any of the additional deficiencies we 
have identified on appeal.