dismissed H-1B Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 1-N-G-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 30,2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer consulting company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a mechanical 
engineer under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB 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· Director, Vermont Service Center, denied ·the petitiOn. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty 
occupation. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
We have reviewed the entire record of proceedings, and find that the Director's decision to deny the 
petition did not adequately address another, more fundamental issue: whether the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is required to 
follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualities as a 
specialty occupation, and second, whether the Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time 
·the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. C.f Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 
560 (Comm'r 1988). ("The facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found 
that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty 
occupation]."). In the instant case, the record of proceedings does not establish that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Matter of 1-N-G-, Inc. 
A. Legal Framework 
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 criter~a: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the m1mmum 
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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). USCIS has consistently interpreted 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, butone in a 
specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 
201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-N-G-, Inc. 
The Petitioner claims to be a computer consulting company established in 2007. In a letter 
submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner stated that it "seeks permission from the USCIS 
for [the Beneficiary] to work at their Computer Consulting Firm as a Mechanical Engineer." 
According to the Petitioner , the duties of the proffered position include the following tasks: 
• Plan and establish sequence of operations to fabricate and assemble parts or 
products and to promote efficient utilization. 
• Review production schedules , engineering specifications , orders, and related 
information to obtain knowledge of manufacturing methods, procedures, and 
activities. 
• Estimate production costs, cost saving methods, and the effects of product 
design changes on expenditures for management review, action, and control. 
• Draft and design layout of equipment, materials, and workspace to illustrate 
maximum efficiency using drafting tools and computer. 
• Coordinate and implement quality control objectives , activities , or procedures 
to resolve production problems , maximize product reliability , or minimize 
costs. 
• Communicate with management and user personnel to develop production and 
design standards. 
• Recommend methods for improving utilization of personnel , material, and 
utilities . 
• Develop manufacturing methods , labor utilization standards, and cost analysis 
systems to promote efficient staff and facility utilization. 
• Confer with clients, vendors, staff, and management personnel regarding 
purchases , product and production specifications , manufacturing capabilities , 
or project status. 
• Apply statistical methods and perfoFm mathematical analysis. 
The Petitioner claims that the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's degree, or the 
equivalent, in mechanical engineering or a related field. 
In response to the Director ' s request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a copy of a 
Professional Services Agreement it executed with The 
agreement vaguely states the terms of the parties ' agreement , and includes a Purchase Order for the 
services of the Beneficiary. The Purchase Order, executed ·on March 25, 2015, indicates that the 
Beneficiary will serve as an "Electro-Mechanical Designer" for commencing 
on October 5, 2015, for a 24 month period. No additional document ation, such as an agreement 
between and was submitted. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that it would employ the Beneficiar y in a specialty occupation. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-N-G-, Inc. 
For H-IB approval, the Petitioner must demonstrate a legitimate need for an employee exists and 
substantiate that it has H -1 B caliber work for the Beneficiary for the entire 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. Here, the Petitioner stated on the Form I-129 that it intends to 
employ the Beneficiary from October I, 2015, to August 28,2017. 
Although the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary would be employed onsite at the Petitioner's 
offices in a specialty occupation position, the evidence of the record does not sufficiently support the 
Petitioner's assertion. The Petitioner claims to be a computer consulting company with no 
employees, and seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a mechanical engineer. 1 In support of the 
petition, the Petitioner provided a vague summary of duties generally associated with mechanical 
engineering. Initially, the Petitioner made no reference to any contractual agreements with 
third-party clients, and provided no explanation regarding how and why a computer consulting 
company with no employees requires the services of a mechanical engineer. 
The documentation submitted in response to the RFE is equally vague . The Petitioner relies on the 
professional services agreement with as evidence of the availability of specialty 
occupation work. However, this agreement is generic and does not identify the type of professional 
services for which it is contracting, nor does it provide any information regarding project details or 
requirements. Although the Petitioner also submitted a purchase order, indicating that requires 
the services of the Beneficiary as an "electro-mechanical designer ," no additional evidence , such as 
documentation establishing the claimed c<:mtractual path between the parties or an overview of client 
requirements and expectations of the Beneficiary, is submitted. 
Moreover, while the record contains a copy of an employment agreement and appointment letter, 
these documents providedlimited details regarding the nature of the Beneficiary's proposed position 
and accompanying duties. For example, the employment agreement is a general contract that covers 
general employer-employee relations, and fails to specifically identify duties to be performed by the 
Beneficiary. In addition , the appointment letter, while identifYing the Beneficiary's position as that 
1 Although it claimed on the Fonn 1-129 to employ one individual , the Petitioner later clarified in its response to the RFE 
that this employee, left the Petitioner 's employment after his contract with the Petitioner's client 
expired in August of2014 . The Petitioner also confirmed that it had no other employe es, and its Fonns 1120S, U.S. 
Income Ta~ Return for an/ S Corporation, indicated that it paid no salaries or wages in either 2013 or 2014. "[l]t is 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner 
submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. /d. at 591-92. It is unclear, therefore, why the 
Petitioner claimed it had one employee when it filed the petition in April 2015 . An inaccurate statement anywhere on· 
the Form 1-129 or in the evidence submitted in connection with the petition mandate s its denial. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(IO)(ii) ; see also id. § 103.2(b)(l) . 
4 
Matter of 1-N-G-, Inc. 
of a mechanical engineer, merely provides general information regarding salary and benefits. 
Without evidence of contracts, work orders, or statements of work describing the duties the 
Beneficiary would perform and for whom, the Petitioner falls short from establishing that the duties 
that the Beneficiary would perform are those of a specialty occupation. Providing a generic job 
description that speculates what the Beneficiary may or may not do at a potential worksite is 
insufficient. A petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be 
insufficient to carry its burden of proof. See Matter of So.ffici, 22 l&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 
1998) (citing 1\1atter o,{Treasure Craft o,{Cal., 14 l&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)); see also 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The Petitioner must support its assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter o,{Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
In addition to being unable to ascertain the nature and duties of the proffered position, we are also 
precluded from determining the nature of the Petitioner's business operations and, therefore, whether 
a credible offer of employment actually exists. The record contains the Petitioner's Form 1120-S, 
U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation, for 2014, as well as the first page of its Form 1120-S 
for 2013. On Line B, which asks for the Petitioner's business activity code number, the Petitioner 
lists 541511. According to the Internal Revenue Service's Principal Business Activity Code list, this 
number corresponds to "Custom Computer Programming Services," which is found under the 
heading of "Computer Systems Design and Related Services. "2 
'.· 
Based on these documents, coupled \Vith the additional evidentiary deficiencies discussed above, 
there is no evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner is engaged in the provision of engineering 
services, mechanical or otherwise. Additionally, we visited the Petitioner's website, and note that 
the Petitioner claims that it "provides information technology specialists, on a temporary basis, to 
assist clients in handling excess or special work loads."3 The website makes no reference to 
engineering services, and simply claims that its three main service areas are consulting, project 
outsourcing, and software development. 
Simply put, the evidence of record provides no explanation as to why, as a computer consulting 
company, the Petitioner is seeking the services of a mechanical engineer. If USCIS finds reason to 
believe that a fact stated in the petition is not true, US CIS may reject that fact. See, e.g., section 
204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b); Anetekhai v. LVS, 876 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1989); 
Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. Supp. 7, 10 (D.D.C. 1988); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 
F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
Without additional information and documentation establishing the project(s) secured for the 
Beneficiary, the nature of tho~e projects, and a clear explanation as to why the Petitioner, a computer 
consulting company with no current employees, requires the services of a mechanical engineer for a 
nearly 2-year period, we are unable to discern the substantive nature of the position and whether the 
proffered position indeed qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
2 See https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i 1120s/ar03.htm1 (last visited Jan. 25, 20 17). 
3 
See http://www.iotnewgeneration.com/aboutus.html (last visited Jan. 25, 20 17). 
5 
Matter of 1-N-G-, Inc. 
Consequently, the evidence of record does not satisfy 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. As the Petitioner has not established that it satisfies any of the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), the proffered position does not qualify as a specialty 
occupation. 
II. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
The Director found that the Beneficiary would not be qualified to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. However, as discussed above, a Beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are 
relevant only when the job is found to be a specialty occupation. Technically, we do not need to 
examine the issue of the Beneficiary's qualifications, because the Petitioner has not provided 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
As discussed in this decision, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence regarding the 
proffered position to determine whether it will require a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Absent this determination that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent is required to perform the duties of the proffered position, it also 
cannot be determined whether the Beneficiary possesses that degree or its equivalent. Therefore, 
while we need not address the Beneficiary's qualifications further, we will briefly address the 
deficiencies in the evidence to demonstrate why the petition could not be approved even if eligibility 
for the benefit sought had been otherwise established. 
A. Legal Framework 
The statutory and regulatory framework that we must apply in our consideration of the evidence of 
the Beneficiary's qualification to serve in a specialty occupation follows below. 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an individual applying for 
classification as an H-IB nonimmigrant worker must possess: 
(A) full state licensure to practice in the occupation, if such licensure is required to 
practice in the occupation, 
(B) completion of the degree described in paragraph (1 )(B) for the occupation, or 
6 
Matter of 1-N-G-, Inc. 
(C) (i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, 
and 
(ii) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions relating to the specialty. 
In implementing section 214(i)(2) of the Act, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) states 
that a beneficiary must also meet one of the following criteria in order to qualify to perform services 
in a specialty occupation: 
(I) Hold a United States baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty 
occupation from an accredited college or university; 
(2) Hold a foreign degree determined to) be equivalent to a United States 
baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty occupation from an 
accredited college or university; 
(3) Hold an unrestricted State license, registration or certification which authorizes 
him or her to fully practice the specialty occupation and be immediately 
engaged in that specialty in the state of intended employment; or 
( 4) Have education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible 
experience that is equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate or 
higher degree in the specialty occupation, and have recognition of expertise in 
the specialty through progressively responsible positions directly related to the 
specialty. 
Therefore, to qualify a beneficiary for classification as an H-lB nonimmigrant worker under the Act, 
the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary possesses the requisite degree or its foreign 
equivalent. Alternatively, if a beneficiary does not possess the required U.S. degree or its foreign 
degree equivalent, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary possesses both (1) education, 
specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience in the specialty equivalent to the 
completion of such degree, and (2) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively 
responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
In order to equate a beneficiary's credentials to a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree, the provisions 
at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(D) require one or more of the following: 
(I) An evaluation from an official who has authority to grant college-level credit 
for training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or 
university which has a program for granting such credit based on an individual's 
training and/or work experience; 
Matter of 1-N-G-, Inc. 
(2) The results of recognized college-level equivalency examinations or special 
credit programs, such as the College Level Examination Program (CLEP), or 
Program on Noncollegiate Sponsored Instruction (PONS!); 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which 
specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials;4 
( 4) Evidence of certification or registration from a nationally-recognized 
professional association or society for the specialty that is known to grant 
certification or registration to persons rin the occupational specialty who have 
achieved a certain level of competence in the specialty; 
(5) A determination by the Service that the equivalent of the degree required by the 
specialty occupation has been acquired through a combination of educatio_p, 
specialized training, and/or work experience in areas related to the specialty and 
that the alien has achieved recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation 
as a result of such training and experience .... 
In accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5): 
For purposes of determining equivalency to a baccalaureate degree in the specialty, 
three years of specialized training and/or work experience must be demonstrated for 
each year of college-level training the alien lacks . . . . It must be clearly 
demonstrated that the alien's training and/or work experience included the theoretical 
and practical application of specialized knowledge required by the specialty 
occupation; that the alien's experience was gained while working with peers, 
supervisors, or Sl:lbordinates who have a degree or its equivalent in the specialty 
occupation; and that the alien has recognition of expertise in the specialty evidenced 
by at least one type of documentation such as: 
(i) Recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation by at least two 
recognized authorities in the same specialty occupation; 5 
(ii) Membership in a recognized foreign or United States association or 
society in the specialty occupation; 
4 The Petitioner should note that, in accordance with this provision, we will accept a credential evaluation service's 
evaluation of education only, not training and/or work experience. 
5 Recognized authority means a person or organization with expertise in a particular field, special skills or knowledge in 
that field, and the expertise to render the type of opinion requested. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii). A recognized authority's 
opinion must state: (l) the writer's qualifications as an expert; (2) the writer's experience giving such opinions, citing 
specific instances where past opinions have been accepted as authoritative and by whom; (3) how the conclusions were 
reached; and ( 4) the basis for the conclusions supported by copies or citations of any research material used. !d. 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-N-G-, Inc. 
(iii) Published material by or about the alien in professional publications, 
trade journals, books, or major newspapers; 
(iv) Licensure or registration to practice the specialty occupation m 
a 
foreign country; or 
(v) Achievements which a recognized authority has determined to be 
significant contributions to the field of the specialty occupation. 
It is always worth noting that, by its very terms, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) is a matter strictly 
for USCIS application and determination, and that, also by the clear terms of the rule, experience 
will merit a positive determination only to the extent that the record of proceedings establishes all of 
the qualifying elements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), including, but not limited to, a type of 
recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation . 
B. Analysis 
As indicated above, the Petitioner claims to be a computer consulting company that seeks to employ 
the Beneficiary as a mechanical engineer. According to the Petitioner, the profiered position 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering or a related field, or its equivalent. 
The evidence of record reflects that the Beneficiary possesses a foreign degree. In support of the 
petition, the Petitioner submitted a credentials evaluation from the which 
stated that the Beneficiary has the equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree ip engineering technology 
based on a combination of his education and work experience. However, this evaluation is not 
acceptable because, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3), USCIS will accept a 
credential evaluation service's evaluation of education only, not training and/or work experience. 6 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a new credentials evaluation from Like 
the evaluation, this evaluation is also unacceptable because the evaluator bases his 
conclusions on a combination of the Beneficiary's education and work experience. As discussed 
above , this evaluation does not meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3). 7 
We also note significant discrepancies in the evaluation submitted by The 
five-page evaluation reaches two different conclusions regarding the U.S. equivalency of the 
Beneficiary's experience. On page one of the evaluation, the evaluator concludes that the 
6 In the decision denying the petition, the Director noted numerous discrepancies between the claims of the evaluator and 
the documentation submitted . While noted, we do not need to review these discrepancies further, as the evaluation will 
not be considered for the reasons set forth above. 
7 We further note that neither the nor the evaluations indicate that the evaluators have 
authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university 
with a program for granting such credit, therefore precluding them from alternatively satisfying the requirements of 
8 C.F .R. § 214 ,2(h)(4)(iiiXD)(I) . 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter ofl-N-G-. Inc. 
Beneficiary possesses the equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. On 
page four of the evaluation, however, the evaluator reaches a different conclusion, noting that the 
Beneficiary's combined education and experience equates to a U.S. bachelor's degree in industrial 
and maintenance engineering. "[I]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies 
by independent objective evidence." Afatter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Any attempt 
to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. !d. at 591-92. Moreover, "[ d]oubt 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. at 591. · 
Finally, \Ve also determine that the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's combined 
education and work experience is the equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iip(D)(5). 
First, the pertinent statute and regulation require the Petitioner to demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
has obtained "progressively responsible" positions and experience in or related to the specialty. 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act; 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C). 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from only one of the Beneficiary's two former employers. 8 Without 
evidence regarding the Beneficiary's employment for the other employer, we cannot adequately 
determine whether the Beneficiary's positions and work experiences have been "progressively 
responsible." Moreover, we note that the new resume on appeal deleted approximately 7 years of 
claimed work history, thereby rendering it more difficult to determine whether the Beneficiary has 
gained "progressively responsible" experience. 
Even the employment letter submitted for the record is insufficiently detailed to demonstrate the 
"progressively responsible" nature of the Beneficiary's position. The letter from does 
8 We .note that, on appeal , the Petitioner submits a new resume for the Beneficiary that omits approximately 7 years from 
the Beneficiary's claimed work history as initially claimed, and modifies the dates of his claimed employment for the 
remaining employers listed. It appears that this deletion and submission of a revised resume was in response to the 
Director's request in the denial that the Petitioner submit evidence establishing that the Beneficiary was in fact 
authorized to work for the Petitioner during those years . The Petitioner states on appeal : 
Please be advised that an Application for a Waiver of Ground of Inadmi ssibility due to material 
misrepresentation was submitted. And we have attached here the receipt number of that application . 
The application was submitted because we do not want the resume that was the bases [sic] of your 
decision to be figured in this appeal. 
Based on this statement, it appears that the initial resume may have been fabricated to establish eligibility in this matter , 
and such a fabrication may render the Beneficiary inadmissible and/or subject to removal proceedings in the future . 
Nevertheless, such issues are not before us in this appeal. Regardless, the evidentiary weight placed on both resumes has 
been significantly diminished due to these numerous unresolved discrepancies as outlined above . 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-N-G-, Inc. 
not contain sufficient information to "clearly" demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets the 
requirements imposed by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). The letter simply states that the 
Beneficiary "is employed by as Field Specialist since October 6, 
2003." This letter provides no information regarding the Beneficiary's job duties, their level of 
responsibility or difficulty, or the bodies of knowledge required in their performance, among other 
pertinent information. Moreover, it does not establish whether the Beneficiary's work experience 
was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates who have a degree or its 
equivalent in the specialty occupation. !d. 
Based on the limited evidence of record, we cannot find that the Beneficiary's specialized training 
and/or work experience is equivalent to at least a U.S. bachelor's degree in the specific specialty. 
Finally, 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(D)( 5) imposes a separate requirement to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary "has recognition of expertise in the specialty evidenced by at least one type of 
documentation" listed therein. The Petitioner has not met this additional requirement, either. 
Documentation to satisfy this prong of the regulation can include "[r]ecognition of expertise in the 
specialty occupation by at least two recognized authorities in the same specialty occupation." 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i). 9 The Petitioner submits no evidence to meet this requirement. 
For the reasons outlined above, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
would be qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation had eligibility otherwise been 
determined. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYER 
Finally, beyond the Director's decision, the petition also cannot be approved because the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that it qualifies as a United States employer. As detailed above, the record of 
proceedings lacks sufficient documentation evidencing what exactly the Beneficiary would do for 
the period of time reqfiested or where exactly and for whom the Beneficiary would be providing 
services. Although the Petitioner submits a copy of a sample performance appraisal, this document 
has little evidentiary value given that the Petitioner has no current employees who could conduct 
such an appraisal. Given t__his spe~ific lack of evidence, the Petitioner has not corroborated 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 has not established whether it has 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 the requisite 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 
9 
The Petitioner does not claim, and the record does not demonstrate, that the Beneficiary satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(ii)-(v). 
II 
Matter of 1-N-G-, Inc. 
respect to the sponsored H-1B nonimmigrant worker). Again and as previously discussed, there is 
insufficient evidence detailing where the Beneficiary will work, 10 the specific projects to be 
performed by the Beneficiary, or for which company the Beneficiary will ultimately perform these ~ 
services. Therefore, the petition cannot be approved for this additional reason. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofl-N-G-, Inc., ID# 182528 (AAO Jan. 30, 2017) 
10 We also note the Director's comments regarding the inability to determine that the Petitioner operates from its claimed 
business address. The submission on appeal of copies of a rent invoice and payment are noted and suggest that the 
Petitioner does in fact lease the claimed premises. However, given the number of discrepancies contained in the record, 
this evidence is deemed questionable. Moreover, the invoice indicates that the Petitioner's monthly rent payment for 
office space is $100 per month, which does not seem credible. "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." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. \ 
12