dismissed H-1B Case: Marketing

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 0 3 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service� 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
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 !Ol(a)(IS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § II 01(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITION ER: 
INSTRU CTIONS: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
lf 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. § l 03.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290 B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form l-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-2 90b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Tha"k+H 
J
vC 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS!Olv 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Dir ector, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Admin istrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
12-employee "Shipping and Retail" firm established in In order to employ the beneficiary in 
what it designates as a "Marketing and Promotion Manager" position, the petitioner seeks to classify 
her as a noni mmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 10 l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101( 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 petit ioner responded to the Director's RFE. 
The Director reviewed the information and determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility 
for the benefit sought. The Director denied the petition, finding that the evidence of record did not 
establish that the petitioner would employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. On 
appeal, the petitioner asserts that the Director's basis for denial was erroneous and contends that the 
petitioner satisfied all evidentiary requ irements. 
We base our decision upon our review of the entire record of proceeding, which includes: 
(1) the petit ioner's Form I-129 and the supporting documentation; (2) the service center's RFE; (3) 
the petitioner's response to the RFE; ( 4) the Director's denial letter; and (5) the Notice of Appeal or 
Motion (Form I-290B) and the petitioner's submissions on appeal. We rev iewed the record in its 
entirety before issuing our decision. 1 
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. 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
In a letter dated April 23, 2014, the petitioner provided the following description of the duties of the 
proffered position: 
• Monitor and forecast marketing and sales trends; (about 15% of working time) 
• Plan advertising and promotional campaign, direct promotion programs with 
purchasing incentives to increase sales; (about 15% of working time) 
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 DECISIOJ\ 
• Direct sales and pncmg strategies for the company's on-line marketing and 
delivery services marketed to the target customers; (about 15% of working time) 
• Work with sales, public relations and product development staff to monitor 
budgets, marketing promotion and sales, estimate the demand for products and 
services that our company and our company's competitors offer; (about 15% of 
working time) 
• Initiate market research studies, analyze findings to understand customer's needs, 
and maintain good relationship with customers. (about 10% of working time) 
• Training new team members to make sure they know their job duties in the 
shortest period of time. (about 10% of working time) 
• Make plans to explore market opportunities for business and measure the 
effectiveness of marketing programs and strategies; (about 10% of working time) 
• Devise methods for collecting data, such as surveys, questionnaires, and opinion 
polls, gather data about consumers, competitors, and marketing conditions, and 
analyze data by using statistical software, prepare reports and present results to 
clients and management; (about 1 0% of working time/ 
The petitioner further stated that the proffered position requires, "at least a Bachelor's Degree with a 
major in Business Administration or a closely related field." 
The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petition states that the 
proffered position is a Marketing and Promotions Manager position, and that it corresponds to 
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code and title 11-2011, Advertising and Promotions 
Managers, from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). The LCA further states that the 
proffered position is a wage Level I, entry-level position, and that the beneficiary will be employed 
at Massachusetts. 
2 In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided a different percentage breakdown for the proposed duties. 
For example, "devise methods for collecting data ... " is changed from I 0% to 25%, and "make plans to 
explore market opportunities ... " is changed from I 0% to 20%. The petitioner did not explain the changes. 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). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS!Ol' 
Page 4 
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.F.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.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must meet one of the following criteria: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the m1rumum 
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 DECISIOA 
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 (1 989); Matter 
ofW-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.P.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. § 21 4.2(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, US CIS regularly approves H -1 B 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-IB 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. users 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)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS!Oll 
Page 6 
B. Analysis 
When determi ning whether a position is a specialty occupation, we must look at the nature of the 
business offering the employment and the description of the specific duties of the position as it 
relates to the particular employer. To ascertain 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." 
For H-lB approval, the petitioner must demonstrate a legitimate need for an employee exists and to 
substantiate that it has H-lB caliber work for the beneficiary for the period of employment requested 
in the petition. 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 its equivalent, to 
perform duties at a level that requires the theoretical and 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. 
In a letter dated April 23, 2014, the petitioner asserted that the proffered position requires, "at least a 
Bachelor's Degree with a major in Business Administration or a closely related field." We note that 
the petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in ''Business Administration" is a sufficient minimum 
requirement for entry into the proffered position is inadequate to establish that the proposed position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position 
requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly to the position in question. Since 
there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the 
requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz 
Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, 
may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will 
not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojf, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007).3 
3 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam the following: 
[t]he courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate prerequisite 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Here, the petitioner in this matter claims that the duties of the proffered position can be performed 
by an individual with only a general-purpose bachelor's degree, i.e., a bachelor's degree in business 
administration. The Director's decision must therefore be affirmed and the petition denied on this 
basis alone. 
Further, we find that the evidence of record does not sufficiently establish the substantive nature of 
the proffered position. In establishing the position as a specialty occupation, a petitioner must 
describe the specific duties and responsibilities to be performed by a beneficiary in the context of 
the petitioner's business operations. Here, the petitioner did not convey the substantive work that 
the beneficiary will perform within the petitioner's business operations. 
Specifically, we note that the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's job duties are recited 
verbatim from the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) and 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Code Connector. 4 For example, the Handbook states 
that market research analysts "monitor and forecast marketing and sales trends," "devise and 
evaluate methods for collecting data, such as surveys, questionnaires, and opinion polls," "gather 
data about consumers, competitors, and market conditions," "analyze data using statistical 
software," and "present results to clients and management. " The Handbook also states that 
advertising, promotions, or marketing managers ""plan advertising and promotional campaigns" 
"direct programs that combine advertising with purchasing incentives to increase sales," and 
"estimate the demand for products and services that an organization and its competitors offer. " 
I d. 
for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify the granting 
of a petition for an H-1 B specialty occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis lnt'l v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 
172, 175-76 (D.Mass.2000); Shanti, 36 F. Supp.2d at 1164-66; cf Matter ofMichael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 l & N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 1988) (providing frequently cited analysis in 
connection with a conceptually similar provision). This is as it should be: elsewise, an 
employer could ensure the granting of a specialty occupation visa petition by the simple 
expedient of creating a generic (and essentially artificial) degree requirement. 
4 For more information, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) Code Connector, "Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists - SOC 
(ONET/OES Code) 13-116, http://www.onetonline.org/linklsummary/13-1161.00 and "Advertising and 
Promotions Managers" -SOC (ONET/OES Code) 11-2011, http://www.onetonline.org/linklsummary/11-
20 11.00 (last visited May 29, 2015). Also see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational 
Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., "Advertising, Promotions, and Marketing Managers," 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/advertising-promotions-and-marketing-m anagers.htm#tab-4, and 
"Market Research Analysts," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/market-research­
analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited May 29, 2015). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIO!v 
Page 8 
This type of generalized description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that may 
be performed within an occupational category, but it fails to adequately convey the substantive work 
that the beneficiary will perform within the petitioner's business operations and, thus, generally 
cannot be relied upon by a petitioner when discussing the duties attached to specific H -1 B 
employment. In establishing a position as a specialty occupation, a petitioner must describe the 
specific duties and responsibilities to be performed by a beneficiary in the context of the petitioner's 
business operations, demonstrate that a legitimate need for an employee exists, and substantiate that 
it has H-1 B caliber work for the beneficiary for the period of employment requested in the petition 
Moreover, the petitioner also has not sufficiently corroborated the duties of the proffered position 
and has not demonstrated that it has sufficient work to employ a marketing and promotions manager 
for 29 hours per week. For example, the petitioner asserts in its April 23, 2014 letter that the 
beneficiary will work with "sales, public relations and product development staff to monitor 
budgets, marketing promotion and sales, estimate the demand for products and services." However, 
there is insufficient evidence in the record of sales, public relations, and product development staff. 
The organizational chart only indicates that there are two employees in its ' 
marketing branch and two employees in its marketing branch. The 
organizational chart does not mention any sales, public relations, and product development staff. 
These omissions cast doubt on the assertion that the beneficiary would work solely as a marketing 
and promotions manager; therefore, we find that the record does not establish, by a preponderance 
of the evidence, the substantive nature of the duties the beneficiary would perform if the visa 
petition were approved. We note that it is reasonable to assume that the size of an employer's 
business has or could have an impact on the claimed duties of a particular position. See EG 
Enterprises. Inc. d/b/a/ Mexican Wholesale Groce1y v. Department of Homeland Security, 467 F. 
Supp. 2d 728 (E.D. Mich. 2006). Thus, the size of a petitioner may be considered as a component 
of the nature of the petitioner's business, as the size impacts upon the actual duties of a particular 
position. 
The petitioner did not provide sufficient consistent details regarding the nature and scope of the 
beneficiary's employment or any substantive evidence regarding the specialty occupation work that 
the beneficiary would perform. Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence 
sufficiently concrete and informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of 
a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into 
the occupation. The tasks as described fail to consistently communicate (1) the substantive nature 
and scope of the beneficiary's employment within the petitioner's business operations; (2) the actual 
work that the beneficiary would perform; (3) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the 
tasks; and/or (4) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular educational level of 
highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
Therefore, we are precluded from 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
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 4.5 
The petitioner has not 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 ISSUE 
In the Form I-129 and the LCA, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary will be placed at 
Massachusetts. In response to the RFE dated July 30, 2014, the petitioner stated 
that the beneficiary has been working in its office; however, the petitioner noted that its 
address has changed to Massachusetts. Further, the petitioner indicated 
that "although the beneficiary is assigned to the office, the work she is performing is not 
limited to that specific location but to the company as a whole." The petitioner also added that the 
"beneficiary's assignment in office is temporary, and our company may transfer her to our 
Office or other locations depending on the progress of our business expansion and upon 
the Services' permission." In support, the petitioner submitted an amended LCA certified on July 
29, 2014 for Massachusetts. 6 
5 We also observe that, if the petitioner had established that the beneficiary would work as an "Advertising 
and Promotions Manager," as claimed on the LCA, that would be insufficient to establish the proffered 
position as a specialty occupation position, as the Handbook does not indicate that such positions require a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., "Advertising, Promotions, and Marketing 
Managers," http://www.bls.gov/ooh /management/advertising-promotions-and-marketing-managers.htm#tab-
4 (last visited May 29, 2015). 
6 While DOL is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to USCIS, DOL 
regulations note that the 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 1-129 actually supports that petition. See 20 C.P.R.§ 655.705(b), which states, in pertinent part: 
For H-1 B visas ... DHS accepts the employer's petition (DHS Form 1-129) 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 individual is a fashion model of distinguished merit 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISJOJI 
Page 10 
We note that the itinerary requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2) (i)(B) states the following: 
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be 
performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an 
itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed 
with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner 
specifies as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for 
purposes of this paragraph. 
The itinerary language at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h) (2)(i)(B), with its use of the mandatory "must" and its 
inclusion in the subsection "Filing of petitions," establishes that the itinerary as there defined is a 
material and necessary document for an H-lB petition involving employment at multiple locations, 
and that such a petition may not be approved for any employment period for which there is not 
submitted at least the employment dates and locations. 7 
In this case, the petitioner did not indicate how the beneficiary's time would be allocated between its 
offices or the frequency with which the beneficiary would be physically at either location. 8 The 
and ability, and whether the qualifications of the nonimmigrant meet the statutory 
requirements of H-1 B visa classification. 
[Italics added]. As 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that an LCA actually supports 
the H-1 B petition filed on behalf of the beneficiary, this regulation inherently necessitates the filing 
of an amended H-1B petition to permit USCIS to perform its regulatory duty to ensure that the new 
LCA actually supports the H-1 B petition filed on behalf of the beneficiary. In addition, as 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(1) requires eligibility to be established at the time of filing, it is factually impossible for an 
LCA approved by DOL after the filing of an initial H-1 B petition to establish eligibility at the time 
the initial petition was filed. Therefore, in order for a petitioner to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(1) and for USCIS to perform its regulatory duties under 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b), a 
petitioner must file an amended H-1 B petition with USC IS whenever a beneficiary's job location 
changes such that a new LCA is required to be filed with DOL. 
7 The instructions to the Form I-129 also state that a petition for a beneficiary to perform services, labor, or 
training in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations where the services or 
training will take place. See Instructions for Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on the 
Internet at http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default!files/files/form/i-129instr.pdf. The H-1 B petition must be 
executed and filed in accordance with the form instructions, w·ith the instructions being incorporated into the 
regulations. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a) (1). 
8 In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted copies of the beneficiary's pay statements. The petitioner 
indicated that the beneficiary started working on April 28, 2014. Notably, the tax deductions on the pay 
statement from May and June 2014 include ' " The petitioner 
did not provide further evidence to substantiate that the beneficiary is working in Massachusetts. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS!Ol\ 
Page 11 
petitioner did not submit an itinerary with the dates and places of the beneficiary services as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(2)(i)(B). 
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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.