dismissed H-1B Case: Management Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10373694 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-18) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 19, 2020 
The Petitioner, a private tutoring company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as a 
"management analyst" under the H-18 nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations.1 The H-
18 program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position 
that requires both: (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge; and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Vermont Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 
concluding that the record did not establish that the proffered position qualified as a specialty 
occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to 
demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 Upon de nova review, we will dismiss 
the appeal. 3 
I. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire 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. The Director 
ultimately concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the offered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. In her decision, the Director discussed the Petitioner's failure to meet both 1) 
the statutory definition of a specialty occupation at section 214(i)(l) of the Act on the basis of the 
Petitioner's own requirements and 2) any of the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner does not address the Director's conclusion that the proffered 
position does not meet the statutory definition of a specialty occupation on appeal. It has, therefore, 
abandoned its claims on this issue. Sepulveda v. US.Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 
2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011WL 4711885 at* 1, 9 (E.D .N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) 
(the court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO) . 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Therefore, even if the Petitioner overcame the issues it addresses within the appeal brief, it still would 
not demonstrate that the petition should be approved. When an appellant fails to properly challenge 
one of the independent grounds upon which the Director based her overall determination, the filing 
party has abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it follows that the Director's adverse 
determination will be affirmed. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 
2014); United States v. Cooper, No. 17-11548, 2019 WL 2414405, at *3 (11th Cir. June 10, 2019); 
McCray v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 839 F.3d 354, 361-62 (4th Cir. 2016); In re Under Seal, 
749 F.3d 276,293 (4th Cir. 2014) (finding "an appellant must convince us that every stated ground for 
the judgment against him is incorrect."); United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005). 
It is, therefore, unnecessary to analyze the remaining independent grounds when another is dispositive 
of the appeal. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding it unnecessary to analyze 
additional grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the appeal); see also Matter of L­
A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
In addition, we note that the Form l-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, is not properly completed. 
Every form must be executed in accordance with the instructions on the form, which are incorporated 
into the regulation requiring its submission. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(1). Further discussion of the filing 
requirements for petitioners is found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1): ". . . . Each benefit request must be 
properly completed and filed with all initial evidence required by applicable regulations and other 
USCIS instructions." In this matter, the Petitioner failed to complete Part 4, Section B, numbers 1 
through 7. Notably, this section contains a signature4 and date at number 8, directly above the 
following: 
NOTE TO ALL APPLICANTS AND PETITIONERS: If you do not completely fill out this 
form or fail to submit required documents listed in the Instructions, USCIS may dismiss, deny, 
or reject your appeal or motion. 
Finally, while not a basis for this decision, the Petitioner has not established the qualifications of the 
Beneficiary, and, therefore, even if the Petitioner had overcome the Director's conclusions and the 
position were determined to be a specialty occupation, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it meets 
any of the requirements at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C). First, the Petitioner submitted a copy of the 
Beneficiary's diploma from I I university in Canada, which is not in English. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) states: 
Translations. Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be 
accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified as 
complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to 
translate from the foreign language into English. 
4 The identity of the signatory is also unknown. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(iii)(B) provides in pertinent part: 
Meaning of affected party. For purposes of this section ... affected party (in addition to the Service) means the 
person or entity with legal standing in a proceeding. 
2 
Second, the Petitioner also did not provide any evidence that the Beneficiary's holds the equivalent of 
a U.S. bachelor's degree or higher, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D). 
11. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden here, and the 
petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3