dismissed H-1B Case: Management Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 6947843 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 31, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "management analyst" under the H-lB 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Upon 
de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the totality of the record, for the reasons set out below , we have determined that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On 
appeal, the Petitioner does not address or challenge the Director 's decision that the record does not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 1 
On appeal, the Petitioner points out that the instant petition was filed as an amended petition for the 
sole purpose of correcting the Director 's error/oversight in approving a previous H-lB petition with 
the wrong end-date. 2 We observe that the Director has the authority to approve an H-lB petition for 
a specialty occupation for up to three years. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(9)(iii)(A)(l). The phrase "up to 
1 For the sake of clarity we note that the Petitioner previously filed an H-lB petition requesting to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a management analyst from October l, 2017 until September 21, 2020. The Director approved the 
previously filed petition! I for H-lB employment from December 1, 2017 to Decembe r 10, 2018, a 
one-year period and not the three-year period requested by the Petitioner. 
2 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E) provides the circumstances which require an amended petition. This 
section states, in pertinent part: "The petitioner shall file an amended or new petition, with fee, with the Service Center 
where the original petition was filed to reflect any material changes in the terms and conditions of employment or training 
or the alien 's eligibility as specified in the original approved petition. [Emphasis added.]" The Petitioner does not argue 
or assert that there are material changes in the terms and conditions of employment or the Beneficiary's eligibility as 
specified in the original approved petition. Thus, an amended petition is not the proper avenue to challenge the Director 's 
decision regarding the approved validity period. 
three years" necessarily includes a time period less than three years. The Petitioner has not cited 
statute, regulation, or precedent case law and does not reference other persuasive authority which 
would require the Director to approve a petition for the entire requested employment period. 
The Petitioner also argues that the Director should not have adjudicated the instant petition ( filed 
January 8, 2018) as a new filing because the previous filing had been adjudicated, approved, and had 
not been revoked. We observe here that when the decision pertaining to the instant petition was issued 
(February 26, 2019), the validity period of the prior approved petition had expired. If the previously 
approved petition had not expired we would have recommended that the prior petition be revoked 
based on the initial petition's documents which were submitted by the Petitioner in this appeal, as the 
Director's prior approval appears to constitute material and gross error on the part of the Director. 3 
We also note that the Director did not "re-adjudicate" the initial approval; rather the Director reviewed 
the instant petition as a new petition to determine whether the Petitioner had established the eligibility 
requirements for this visa classification. 
In that regard the Director reviewed the Petitioner's response to the request for evidence regarding the 
nature of the proffered position and whether the Petitioner had established the position as a specialty 
occupation. 4 The Director properly concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. In the decision, the Director discussed the lack of evidence 
in the record demonstrating that the Petitioner had satisfied any of the four regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) - (4). Upon consideration of the entire record, including the 
assertions on appeal, 5 we adopt and affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. See 
Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 
872, 874 (BIA 1994)); see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal 
decides that the facts and evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately 
confronted and correctly resolved by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to 
adopt those findings" provided the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
Regarding the Director's discussion of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), we would 
add that the Petitioner in this matter has not provided evidence of the actual day-to-day duties of the 
proffered position so that those duties may be analyzed to determine if the duties are the duties of a 
management analyst and farther whether the duties as described require a bachelor's level degree in a 
specific discipline, or the equivalent to perform the duties. 6 Furthermore, the Petitioner did not provide 
3 The Petitioner's description of the proposed position in the previous petition is the same as the description proffered here. 
As noted below. the description is insufficient to establish the position as a specialty occupation. The Director's prior 
approval of the position described in the previous position despite the lack of probative evidence establishing the position 
as a specialty occupation constituted material and gross error. 
4 We observe that the Petitioner in its response to the Director's RFE addressed only the first criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). That is the Petitioner did not provide evidence, despite the Director's request, to establish the 
proffered position under any of the remaining criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
5 As noted above, the Petitioner does not challenge the Director's decision regarding the issue of specialty occupation on 
appeal, but rather emphasizes that the Director did not properly consider its argument that a previously approved petition 
must be approved for the requested employment period. 
6 The Petitioner paraphrases portions of the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook's (Handbook) report 
on management analysts. See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook. 
Management Analysts, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/management-analysts.htm (last visited Jan. 31, 
2 
sufficient information with regard to the order of importance or frequency of occurrence ( e.g., 
regularly, periodically, or at irregular intervals) with which the Beneficiary will perform the duties, it 
generally describes. Thus, the record does not specify which tasks are major functions of the proffered 
position. Here, the record is insufficient to establish that the proffered position is a management 
analyst position, and further that the generally described duties require both the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the 
occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation). 
II. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2020). However a petitioner cannot repeat and rely on portions of the generalized descriptions found in the Handbook 
when discussing the duties attached to specific employment. Moreover, the Petitioner in this matter added duties such as 
"[ m Jake sure [the Petitioner] is compliant with federal quality standards to avoid heavy penalties;" "[i]nspect food products 
to ensure they are safe ... [ and] [ c ]reate a checklist to be used to confirm products are packaged safely;" and "[b ]e a liaison 
with [the Petitioner's] customers, employees, suppliers, licensing authorities and sales representatives to meet set 
productivity goals of the business." These duties appear to fall within the parameters of a food manager or some other 
occupation, not a management analyst's occupation. Thus, it is not clear that the proposed position is actually a 
management analyst occupation, the occupation designated on the certified labor condition application. 
3