dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 1 2 2015 OFFICE: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
l!.S. l.kpartm(�nt of Homdand S<�rurity 
U.S. Citi/cnship and Immigration S.:rvice' 
Administrative :\ppcals Onicc (!\;\()) 
21) Mas,;aehusdts Ave .. N.W .. iVJS 209(1 
W<tshitH:>.lon. DC 2052<l-20'JO 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Iminigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10l(a)( l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-
290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, and the matter is 
now on appeal before the Administrative Appeals Office. The appeal will be dismissed. The 
petition will be denied. 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form l-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
29- employee "Software Development & Consulting" business established in In order to 
employ the beneficiary in what it designates as a full-time "Programmer Analyst" position at a 
salary of $60,000 per year, the petitioner seeks to classify her as a nonimmigrant worker in a 
specialty occupation pursuant to section 10 l (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record does not demonstrate that 
the beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation. The petitioner 
subseq uently filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The director granted the combined 
motion and affirmed the denial of the petition. 
The petitioner now files this appeal. The petitioner asserts that there IS suflicient evidence 
establishing that the beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position. 
The record of proceeding contains the following: (1) the Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; 
(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; (5) the petitioner's Form I-2908, Notice of Motion, and 
supporting documentation; (6) the director's decision on the motion; and (7) the Form 1-2908, 
Notice of Appeal, and supporting documentation. We have reviewed the record in its entirety 
before issuing our decision. 
--
Upon review of the entire record of proceeding, we find that the evidence of record does not overcome 
the director's ground for denial. Beyond the director's decision, 1 we have identified additional grounds 
for denial, i.e., that the evidence of record fails to establish that: (I) the petitioner qualifies as a 
United States employer that has and will maintain an employer-employee relationship with the 
beneficiary throughout the entire validity period requested; and (2) the position proffered qualities 
as a specialty occupation? For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed, and the petition will be 
denied. 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DO.J, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
2 We will first discuss whether the petitioner has an employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary, 
and whether the prof fered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. We will then discuss the director's 
ground for denial, i.e., whether the beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position. We are required to 
follow long-standing legal standards and determine whether the proffered position is a specialty occupation 
before determining whether an alien beneficiary is qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant 
visa petition is filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assoc., 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]."). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-129 on April 1, 2013, listing its business address as 
� 
_ Illinois. The petitioner indicated on thf' Fmm 1-179 th>�t it 
seeks to employ the benefi ciary as a "Programmer Analyst" at the address of 
, New York. The petitioner further indicated that it will submit an itinerary with 
the petition, and that the beneficiary will work off-site. The petitioner listed the dates of the 
beneficiary's intended employment as October 1, 2013 through September 3, 2016. 
The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petition states that the 
proffered position is a Programmer Analyst, and that it corresponds to Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) code and title "15-1131, Computer Programmers" from the Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET). The LCA states that the proffered position is a Level I, entry-level, 
position. The LCA listed the places of the beneficiary's employment as: (1) 
Illinois; and (2) 
·· ' 
New York. 
In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted a letter, dated March 13, 2013, explaining the 
duties of the proffered position. Specifically, the petitioner states that the beneficiary will 
"[analyze] the data processing requirements to determine the computer software which will best 
serve [clients'] needs," "design a computer system using that software," "implement that design by 
overseeing the installation of the necessary system software and its customization to our company's 
unique requirements," and then "constantly revise and revamp the system as it is being created to 
respond to unanticipated software anomalies." The petitioner further states that " [ t] he actual 
computer programming may be performed with the assistance of the programmers." 
In the same letter, the petitioner states"that the beneficiary "will be involved in the designing and 
development" of an unspecified "application." The petitioner states that the "development" of the 
unspecified "systems" will include the following "phases:" 
1. Analysis of the existing system and user needs; 
2. Communication and interaction with current system users; 
3. Design and development of a new computerized system; 
4. Writing and testing of newly designed programs; 
5. Implementation of the newly developed system; [and] 
6. Provide technical support after system implementation. 
The petitioner proceeded to provide the following breakdown of the "Day-to-Day Responsibilities" 
of the proffered position and the percentage of time allotted to each duty: 
1. Analysis of software requirements (25%); 
2. Evaluation of interface feasibility between hardware and software ( 1 0%); 
3. Software system design (using scientific analysis and mathematical models to predict 
and measure design consequence and outcome (30%); 
4. Unit and integration testing (25%); 
5. System installation (5%); 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
6. Systems maintenance (5%). 
The petitioner then listed the following "Specific Duties" for the proffered position: 
•!• Design and implement all QA test strategy plans and automate test solutions for 
client/server and web applications with mercury interactive test suite (LoadRunner, 
Quick Test Pro and Quality Center). 
•!• Perform load test, stress test, benchmark profile test, fail-over test, fail-back test 
against supported configurations. 
•!• Responsible for loading test oracle application. 
•!• Handle complex view state and event validation for .net based applications. 
•!• Verify the connectivity from controller to the load controller and utilize the IP 
address of load generator to add them to the controller. 
•!• Trace deadlock and expensive and test procedures (MS SQL Profile, Oracle 
Performance manager). 
•!• Create test suite and test cases to validate web service using SOAPUI. 
•!• Using descriptive programming to handle dynamic object using VBScript. 
•!• Responsible for developing baseline scenarios and load testing harnesses for 
load/performance testing of the application. 
•!• Generate predefined reports SLA reports, SLA outage reports. 
•!• Responsible for performance monitoring and analysis of response time & memory 
leaks using throughput graphs. 
•!• Develop and enhance script using Load Runner and design scenarios using 
performance center to generate realistic load on the application under test. 
•!• Trace Java methods and database queries execution using J2EE diagnostic tool (load 
Runner Add-IN). 
•!• Develop performance test plan as well as develop details performance analysis report, 
graphs (include load Runner build on graphs and MS Excel-custom graphs). 
•!• Conduct load test for multiple using user Load Runner. 
•!• Use Load Runner monitors to identify bottlenecks. 
•!• Setup Issue management task, risk assessment and measure operational impact. 
•!• Update project plan, status report and maintain issue log. 
•!• Prepare program specs, execute testing and prepare implementation plan. 
•!• Develop processed, controls and record keeping data collection and analysis. 
[Verbatim.] 
As to the minimum educational requirement of the proffered position, the petitioner states that the 
"minimum educational qualifications for this position are a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, 
Engineering, Mathematics, Business, a related analytic or scientific discipline, or its equivalent in 
education or work-related experience." 
The petitioner further states that the beneficiary is an "excellent candidate" for the proffered position 
by virtue of her academic background and training. The petitioner highlights the beneficiary's 
Master of Degree from 
······· ·· · ·· · ·- ·- - - - - - - -------------------------
(b)(6)
Page 5 
Michigan, her Bachelor of . Degree from 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
India, and her "related experience within the computing field." The petitioner states that the 
beneficiary's background "uniquely qualify him [sic] to assume this position within a 
business/logistics computing environment, functioning at a professional level I, assessing business 
and systems needs and implementing same," and "will enable him [sic] to assist our company in 
better assessing clients' needs, based on a complete understanding of business ramifications of 
systems changes and their effects." 
In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted, inter alia, an itinerary. The itinerary indicates 
that the beneficiary will first be assigned to work for the end-client 
(' ' or " . ) at the address of 
New York. The dates of this particular assignment are listed as "From 10/0 l /2013 & Extendable 
beyond 2014." The itinerary indicates that the beneficiary will subsequently be assigned to work 
for the petitioner at its business premises at 
Illinois for the "[r]est of the period of H-1B Approval." Only one project, vaguely described as 
"Infor mation technology services," is listed on the itinerary; no other information about this 
"project" is provided. At the bottom the itinerary states, in pertinent part: "Upon completion of this 
project the beneficiary will be assigned to one of the other on-going projects undertaken by the 
company on behalf of our clientele." No further information was provided explaining what projects 
and clientele to which the beneficiary will be assigned. 
The petitioner submitted a letter, dated March 20, 2013, from the CEO of . 
describing its company as "an Analytics customized Product development company based in 
. " The letter verifies that the beneficiary "has been selected to work for 
as an IT contractor." The letter states that it has "a need of [sic] [the 
beneficiary's] services for about 18 months with possible extensions." The letter then lists the 
following responsibilities to be performed by the beneficiary: 
• Identifying user requirements and performing research and analysis to determine 
conceptual design for solving business problems. 
• Develop LoadRunner scripts for Data Creation. 
• Simulate multiple Vuser scenarios. Defined Rendezvous point to create intense load 
on the server and thereby measure the server performance under load. 
• Verify the connectivity from Controller to the Load Generator. Utilized the IP 
address of Load Generators to add them to the Controller. 
• Trace deadlock and expensive SQL queries and test procedures (MS SQL Profile, 
Oracle Performance Manager). 
• Usage of different checkpoints for evaluation of test scripts and develop reusable 
actions. 
• Extensive usage of Quality Center for storage and maintenance of requirements, tests, 
test cases, defects and scheduling automation of test cases. 
• Develop and implement test and unit validations. 
• Maintain security, integration and system level testing. 
• Fine tune the application design to meet the client needs as best as possible. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The petitioner submitted a Professional Services Agreement (PSA), dated March 15, 2013, between 
and the petitioner. The PSA states, in pertinent part, that 
desires to "engage the services of [the petitioner] to assist in design, development of its ': 
_ 
l _ ;', the product stack _ is developing," which requires the petitioner to 
"periodically present a candidate to provide services to as a consultant (the 'Candidate'), 
as described more specifically in Exhibit A, incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement." 
The PSA states that the services shall commence "pursuant to a Work Order in the form of Exhibits 
(as defined in Exhibit A)." 
The Exhibit A accompanying the PSA is entitled "Contract to Hire Agreement." This document 
identifies the "Candidate" as the beneficiary, and the "Scope of Work" as "QA Testing." The start 
date is listed as "10/01/2013 (Tentatively)" and the end date is listed as "12/31/2014 (Extendable)." 
The job duties are identical to those listed in the letter dated March 20, 2013 from the CEO of 
The petitioner submitted screen-shots from the website of 
about its product r 
"3 
, including a page 
Regarding the beneficiary's educational qualifications, the petitioner submitted copies of her: ( 1) 
Master of degree from 
(2) transcript from ·; (3) Provisional Certificate of a Bachelor's 
Degree in from the 
· 
; and (4) transcript from 
The petitioner submitted a copy of the beneficiary's Form I-20 A-8 showing authorization to 
complete her OPT training at - -- - · - ._., from October 4, 2010 to October 3, 2011, and 
October 4. 2011 to March 4, 2013. The beneficiary's supervisor at is I is ted as 
,4 who is also the petitioner's President and the signatory of the instant petition and 
other documentation submitted in support of the petition. The petitioner also submitted a copy of 
the beneficiary's Employment Authorization Card demonstrating her OPT extension from October 
4, 2011 through March 4, 2013. 
The director issued an RFE instructing the petitioner to submit additional evidence establishing that 
the beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted an evaluation of academic and experiential 
credentials from Dr. Pmf�ssor of Computer Science at 1 
Dr. states that although he has "never personally met" the 
3 There are no references to the "� " product suite. The petitioner did not submit any 
independent documentation establishing the existence and development of the " " 
4 I i's last name appears in the record as " '' and" " 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
ben eficiary, he has "thoroughly reviewed [the beneficiary's] academic documentation, resume, and 
work verification letters" to conclude that she has the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree in 
The petitioner submitted a letter from , President of .5, 
confirming the beneficiary's employment as a "Programmer Analyst" in its company from January 
3, 2011 to March 4, 2013. This letter states that the beneficiary "worked on different performance 
testing projects using Quality Center, QTP, Load Runner, Test Director, UNIX, Java, .NET, Oracle 
and other tools." The letter then briefly lists some of the beneficiary's duties, which included 
performance testing of applications, creating test suites and test cases, conducting Load Runner for 
multiple users, and developing performance tests plan. 
The oetitioner also submitted the beneficiary's resume, which lists her professional experience at 
. in Illinois as a "Performance Engineer" and m 
India as a "Functional Analyst." 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the evidence does not establish that the beneficiary 
is qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation. The director based her decision, in part, 
on the lack of corroborating evidence of the beneficiary's claimed work experience at 
, and thus, the lack of evidence supporting the evaluator's conclusion that the beneficiary 
has earned the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in 
The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen and reconsider. In the motion, the petitioner 
explained that, at the time of its RFE response, it had not yet received the experience letter it 
requested from . The petitioner admitted that the evaluation was performed 
based upon the beneficiary's resume. With the motion, the petitioner provided a letter from 
5 
I 
. The letter states the following in its entirety: 
Date: 31/05/2013 
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 
This is to certify that Ms. worked as a Functional Analyst 
from 11th December 2006 to 01 st August 2008. During her tenure she worked on 
Claims Process application using Microsoft technologies and Modeling tools. Some 
of her other duties are application Documentation and validation. Her conduct was 
good and satisfactory. 
We wish her good luck in her future activities. 
fSignature 1 
is also referred to as ", . " and ". 111 in the record . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
For 
The director granted the petitioner's motion, but affirmed the denial of the petition. [n part, the 
director noted that the letter from contained an insufficient description of 
the beneficiary's duties to demonstrate progressively responsible experience equating to the 
completion of a degree in the specialty occupation. The director also noted the lack of evidence 
demonstrating that the beneficiary has recognition of expertise in the specialty through 
progressively responsible experience directly related to the specialty, particularly considering that 
the beneficiary's bachelor degree is in and is an 
firm. The director concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the beneficiary is 
qualified for the proffered position. 
The petitioner filed an appeal. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the submitted evidence was 
sufficient to show that the beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position. In support of the 
appeal, the petitioner resubmits copies of the evaluation from Dr. and other previously 
sub mitted documentation. 
II. STANDARD OF PROOF 
As a preliminary matter and in light of the petitioner's references to the requirement that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) apply the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, 
we affirm that, in the exercise of our appellate review in this matter, as in all matters that come 
within our purview, we follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in the 
controlling precedent decision, Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-376 (AAO 2010). In 
pertinent part, that decision states the following: 
Except where a different standard is specified by law, a petitioner or applicant in 
administrative immigration proceedings must prove by a preponderance of evidence 
that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. 
* * * 
The "preponderance of the evidence" of "truth" IS made based on the factual 
circumstances of each individual case. 
* * * 
Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence 
standard, the director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative 
value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. 
� � -� --- �--�-- -- - -- -- ---------
(b)(6)
Page 9 
/d. 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Even if the director has some doubt as to the tmth, if the petitioner submits relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is 
"more likely than not" or "probably" true, the applicant or petitioner has satisfied the 
standard of proof. See INS v. Cardoza-Foncesca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987) 
(discussing "more likely than not" as a greater than 50% chance of an occurrence 
taking place). If the director can articulate a material doubt, it is appropriate for the 
director to either request additional evidence or, if that doubt leads the director to 
believe that the claim is probably not true, deny the application or petition. 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DO.J, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). In doing so, we apply the preponderance of the evidence standard as outlined in Matter of 
Chawathe. Upon our review of the present matter pursuant to that standard, however, we find that 
the evidence in the record of proceeding does not support the petition er's contentions that the 
evidence of record merits the approval of the petition. Upon our review of the entire record of 
proceeding, and with close attention and due regard to all of the evidence, separately and in the 
aggregate, submitted in support of this petition, we find that the petitioner has not established that 
its claims are "more likely than not" or "probably" true. As the evidentiary analysis of this decision 
will reflect, the petitioner has not submitted relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads us 
to believe that the petitioner's claims are "more likely than not" or "probably" true. 
III. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 
As a preliminary matter, we find that the evidence in the record fails to establish the substantive 
nature of the proffered position. 
The petitioner has presented conflicting descriptions of the proffered position and its constituent job 
duties. On one hand, the LCA submitted to support the instant petition was certified for a position 
falling under the "Computer Programmers" occupational classification. The petitioner describes 
some duties for the proffered position that are reasonably consistent with the "Computer 
Programmers" occupational classification, such as analyzing clients' software needs and designing 
computer systems to meet those needs. 6 
On the other hand, the petitioner has also presented evidence indicating that the proffered position 
will primarily involve quality assurance (QA) testing duties, and as such, is better classified under 
6 Specifically, O*NET states that pos1t10ns falling within the "Computer Programmer" occupational 
classification "[m]ay assist software developers by analyzing user needs and designing software solutions." 
O*NET further lists duties such as "[ c ]onsult with managerial, engineering, and technical personnel to clarify 
program intent, identify problems, and suggest changes," and "[p]erform systems analysis and programming 
tasks to maintain and control the use of computer systems software as a systems programmer." See 
http://www.onetonline.org/linklsummary/15-l 13 1.00 (last visited Apr. 30, 20 15). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
the O*NET code and title 15-1199.01, Software Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers, 
occupational classification. 7 
In particular, the petitioner's "Specific Duties" for the proffered position are primarily comprised of 
QA testing duties such as: "[d]esign and implement all QA test strategy plans and automate.test 
solutions for client/server and web applications with mercury interactive test suite (LoadRunner, 
Quick Test Pro and Quality Center)"; "[p]erform load test, stress test, benchmark profile test, fail­
over test, fail-back test against supported configurations"; "[ c ]reate test suite and test cases to 
validate web service"; "[r]esponsible for developing baseline scenarios and load testing harnesses 
for load/performance testing of the application"; "[d]evelop and enhance script using Load Runner 
and design scenarios using performance center to generate realistic load on the application under 
test"; and "[d]evelop performance test plan." Notably, the "Specific Duties" the petitioner listed for 
the proffered position do not appear to include any programming duties. 8 
In addition, the documentation from the only identified end-client, , indicates 
that the beneficiary will primarily be performing quality assurance (QA) testing duties. Specifically, 
in the "Contract to Hire Agreement'' between the end-client and the petitioner, the beneficiary's 
scope of work is described as "QA Testing." In the end-client's letter, the majority of the 
beneficiary's duties are QA testing duties, including "[d]evelop LoadRunner scripts for Data 
Creation," "[s]imulate multiple Vuser scenarios ... [and] measure the server performance under 
load," "evaluation of test scripts and develop reusable actions," "[e]xtensive usage of Quality Center 
for storage and maintenance of requirements, tests, test cases, defects and scheduling automation of 
test cases," "[d]evelop and implement test and unit validations," and "[m]aintain ... system level 
testing." Again, we note that no specific programming duties are listed for the beneficiary. 
Based on the inconsistencies in the record, as described above, we find that the petitioner has not 
established the substantive nature of the proffered position, i.e., whether the proffered position is 
that of a computer programmer or Quality Assurance tester. 
7 O*NET lists the job duties for "Software Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers" as including: design 
test plans, scenarios, scripts, or procedures; test system modifications to prepare for implementation; develop 
testing programs; document software defects; identify, analyze, and document problems with program 
function, output, online screen, or content; create or maintain databases of known test defects; plan test 
schedules or strategies in accordance with project scope or delivery dates; and review software 
documentation to ensure technical accuracy, compliance, or completeness, or to mitigate risks. See 
http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1199.0 I (last visited Apr. 30, 20 15). 
8 In fact, it is unclear whether some of the petitioner's statements are even relevant to the beneficiary and the 
actual position being offered to her. For instance, the petitioner states that "[t]he actual computer 
programming may be performed with the assistance of the programmers." It is unclear what this statement is 
intended to convey considering that the petitioner certified the proffered position as falling under the 
"Computer Programmers" occupational classification. Further, the petitioner makes several references to the 
beneficiary as a male, although the beneficiary here is female. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page II 
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. Maller qf 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. 
In addition to the above inconsistencies, we find that the petitioner has neither adequately explained 
nor submitted sufficient, credible evidence establishing what work the beneficiary will be assigned 
to during the entire validity period requested from October 1, 2013 through September 3, 2016. 
According to the itinerary, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary will first be assigned to work for 
the end-client . located at 
' 
, New York. 
The petitioner asserts that after this assignment, the beneficiary will work for the petitioner at its 
business premises at · . Illinois. However, the 
petitioner has not provided sufficient explanation and documentation of the work to be performed at 
either place of employment. 
With respect to the beneficiary's claimed assignment to . _ , there are critical 
inconsistencies and deficiencies that undermine the validity of the petitioner's claims and submitted 
documentation. Here, we reiterate and incorporate our earlier discussion about the inconsistencies 
in the evidence indicating that the beneficiary will be a QA tester, as opposed to the petitioner's 
classification of the proffered position as a computer programmer. Moreover, we find that the 
petitioner has not clearly articulated exactly what project the beneficiary would be assigned to for 
. The itinerary submitted in support of the petition only states vaguely that the 
"project" the beneficiary will work on is "Information technology services." The itinerary does not 
provide a specific project name or description. Similarly, the petitioner's initial letter states vaguely 
that the beneficiary will be "involved in the designing and development" of an unspecified 
"application" and "systems." The petitioner does not identify any project name, or any application 
and systems involved. 
While the PSA between _ and the petitioner states that the petitioner was 
contracted to "assist in design, development of [I 's] ' 
_ _ 
,"' the 
petitioner does not make any express mention of " " in its itinerary and other 
supporting documentation. Moreover, the record contains no objective evidence establishing the 
existence and development of the claimed " " product. We note that while 
the petitioner submitted pages from _ ' website discussing its ", 
product, there are no references to its claimed " " 
There are also inconsistencies within the documentation from that raise doubts 
as to their validity and authenticity. For instance, the PSA between the petitioner and 
states that the beneficiary's services shall commence "pursuant to a Work Order in the 
form of Exhibits (as defined in Exhibit A)." However, the attached "Exhibit A" is not entitled a 
"Work Order," but a "Contract to Hire Agreement." Further, the "Contract to Hire Agreement" 
-- --- ----------�------------------------·-----------·------- ·----------------
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
indicates that the beneficiary will be working for approximately fifteen months, whereas 
:' letter states that it has a need for the beneficiary's services for "about 18 months." 
In addition to the unclear nature of the beneficiary's purported assignment to ., 
the evidence of record fails to establish what work the beneficiary would perform for the petitioner. 
As noted above, the itinerary states that after the beneficiary's assignment to 
"the beneficiary will be assigned to one of the other on-going projects undertaken by the company 
on behalf of our clientele." However, the petitioner does not further identify nor document what 
other "projects" and "clientele" the beneficiary would be assigned to service. The petitioner has not 
submitted any service agreements, work orders, or similar documentation establishing what work it 
will assign the beneficiary to perform at its business premises at : 
_ , Illinois, or elsewhere. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSofjici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter o.fTreasure Crafi o.lCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
Overall, the lack of identification and documentation of all of the projects, end-clients, and job 
duties that will be assigned to the beneficiary during the entire requested validity period precludes 
any meaningful understanding of the substantive nature of the proffered position. 
IV. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE 
In addition to finding that the evidence does not establish the substantive nature of the proffered 
position, we find, beyond the decision of the director, that the petition must be denied due to the 
failure to establish that the petitioner qualifies as a United States employer that will have and 
maintain an employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary throughout the entire validity 
period requested. 
As detailed above, the record of proceeding lacks sufficient documentation evidencing what exactly 
the beneficiary would do for the period of time requested or where exactly and for whom the 
beneficiary would be providing services. Given this specific lack of evidence, the petitioner has 
failed to establish 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 evidence in the record fai Is to 
establish whether the petitioner has made a bona fide offer of employment to the beneficiary 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 respect to the sponsored H-1 B nonimmigrant worker). 
We acknowledge the letter from stating that the petitioner "is the employer" of 
the beneficiary, that the petitioner "has the right to pay, hire, fire, supervise and otherwise control 
their employee," and that "[a]t all times, [the petitioner] has the right to control the work of [the 
beneficiary], regardless of whether that right is exercised, through the duration of [this] contract." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
We also acknowledge the petitioner's assertions that it will pay the beneficiary's salary and standard 
company benefits, and that her employment "is not dependent upon a contractual agreement(s) with 
any of our clients firm [sic]." However, such assertions, without more, are insufficient to establish 
that the petitioner will have and maintain an employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary. 
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. at 165. 
Furthermore, while salary and related benefits are relevant factors in determining who will control 
the beneficiary, other incidents of the relationship, e.g., who will oversee and direct the work of the 
beneficiary, who will provide the instrumentalities and tools, where will the work be located, and 
who has the right or ability to affect the projects to which the alien beneficiary is assigned, must 
also be assessed and weighed in order to make a determination as to who will be the beneficiary's 
employer. 9 Without full disclosure of all of the relevant factors, we are unable to properly assess 
whether the requisite employer-employee relationship will exist between the petitioner and the 
beneficiary. 
Again and as previously discussed, there is insufficient evidence detailing the circumstances of the 
beneficiary's employment, such as what the beneficiary will do, the specific projects to be 
performed by the beneficiary, or for which clients the beneficiary will ultimately perform these 
services. The absence of such evidence precludes the finding that the petitioner qualifies as a 
United States employer with the requisite employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary 
9 The United States Supreme Court determined that where federal law fails to clearly define the term 
"employee," courts should conclude that the term was "intended to describe the conventional master-servant 
relationship as understood by common-law agency doctrine." Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 
U.S. 318, 322-323 (1992) (hereinafter "Darden") (quoting Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 
490 U.S. 730 ( 1989)). The Supreme Court stated: 
"In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of 
agency, we consider the hiring party 's right to control the manner and means by which the 
product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this inquiry are the skill 
required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration 
of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign 
additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and 
how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party's role in hiring and paying 
assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the 
hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the 
hired party." 
Darden, 503 U.S. at 323-324 (quoting Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. at 751-752); 
see also Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440, 445 (2003) (hereinafter 
"Clackamas"). As the common-law test contains "no shorthand formula or magic phrase that can be applied 
to find the answer, ... all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one 
factor being decisive.'' Darden, 503 U.S. at 324 (quoting NLRB v. United Ins. Co. rif America, 390 U.S. 254, 
258 ( 1968)). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
throughout the entire validity period requested. The appeal must be dismissed and the petition must 
be denied for this reason. 
V. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
To meet its burden of proof in establishing the proffered position as a specialty occupation , the 
pet itioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the benefici ary meets the following 
statut ory and regulatory requirements. 
Section 214(i)( l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)( I) 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 
also 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 15 
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 2 I 4(i)( 1) 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); Malter of 
W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 2 I 4.2(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 ac ondition 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. Cherto.ff, 484 
F .3d 139, 14 7 (I st 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, 
USC IS 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-1 B 
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. USCIS 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. 
We note that, as recognized by the court in Defensor, supra, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. See 
Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-388. The court held that the former Immigration and 
Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the statute and regulations as requiring the 
petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the beneficiary's services. !d. at 384. Such 
evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and educational level of highly 
specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform that particular work. 
Here, and as discussed earlier in this decision, the petitioner has not established the substantive 
nature of the proffered position. The petitioner's failure to establish the substantive nature of the 
work to be performed by the beneficiary precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies at 
least one 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. 
We also note that the petitioner asserts that the proffered position can be satisfied by a minimum of 
a bachelor's degree in a wide range of fields. Specifically, the petitioner described the minimum 
educational requirement as a "Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Engineering, Mathematics, 
Business, a related analytic or scientific discipline, or its equivalent in education or work-related 
experience." Such an assertion, without more, is insufficient to establish that the proffered position 
is in fact a specialty occupation. 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its 
equivalent. As discussed supra, 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. Thus, the petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and 
specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. 
The petitioner's claimed entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in disparate fields, without 
more, does not denote a requirement in a specific specialty. Again, since there must be a close 
correlation between the required body of highly specialized knowledge and the position, a minimum 
entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields, such as business and engineering, would not meet 
the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the 
petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position such that the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an 
amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). This 
has not been established here. 
Furthermore, since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and 
the position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title or a general-purpose degree, such 
as "Business" or "Engineering," without further specification, does not establish the position as a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
speci alty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) 10; �f 
Matter of Michael Hertz Asso ciates, 19 I&N Dec. 558. 
For these reasons, the evidence of record fails to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. The petition must be denied for this additional reason. 
VI. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
Finally, we find that the director correctly determined that the beneficiary ts not qualified to 
perform the duties of such a specialty occupation. 
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 alien applying for classification as 
an H-1 B 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 (l)(B) for the occupation, or 
(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 an alien 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; 
10 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam that: 
!d. 
[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 
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 Jnt'l v. INS, 94 
F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D.Mass.2000); Shanti, 36 F. Supp.2d at 1164-66; c.f Matter of 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I & N Dec. at 560 (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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
(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. 
In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(v)(A) states: 
General. If an occupation requires a state or local license for an individual to fully 
perform the duties of the occupation, an alien (except an H-1 C nurse) seeking H 
classification in that occupation must have that license prior to approval of the 
petition to be found qualified to enter the United States and immediately engage in 
employment in the occupation. 
Therefore, to qualify an alien for classification as an H-1 B nonimmigrant worker under the Act, the 
petitioner must establish that the beneficiary possesses the requisite license or, if none is required, 
that he or she has completed a degree in the specialty that the occupation requires. Alternatively, if 
a license is not required and if the 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: 
(1) 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; 
(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 (PONSI); 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which 
(b)(6)
Page 19 
specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials; 
1 1 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
( 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 in 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 education, 
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 subordinates 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; 
12 
(ii) Membership in a recognized foreign or United States association or 
society in the specialty occupation; 
(iii) Publishe d material by or about the alien tn professional publicat ions, 
trade journals, books, or major newspapers; 
(iv) Licensure or registration to practice the specialty occupation in a foreign 
11 
The petitioner should note that, in accordance with this provision, we will accept a credentials evaluation 
service's evaluation of education only, not training and/or work experience. 
12 
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. A recognized authority's 
opinion must state: (I) 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 supp011ed by copies or citations of 
any research material used. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii). 
(b)(6)
Page 20 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 proceeding 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. 
In the instant matter, the petitioner submitted an evaluation from Dr. concluding that the 
benefic iary has the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree in Management Information Systems based on 
her academic coursework and professional career. However, for the reasons discussed below, we 
will afford this evaluation no probative value. 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). 
Dr. 's evaluation does not appear to have been based upon credible, objective documentary 
evidence. As noted by the director, Dr. asserts that he "thoroughly reviewed [the 
beneficiary's] academic documentation, resume, and work verification letters (emphasis added)." 
As the petitioner now admits, however, one of the two work verification letters (i.e., the letter from 
) was not even available until qfter the evaluation was 
performed, and the evaluation was performed on the basis of the beneficiary's resume. There is no 
indication that Dr. verified or otherwise corroborated the beneficiary's resume with any 
independent evidence. 
Moreover, Dr. does not sufficiently explain the factual basis for his conclusions. For 
instance, Dr. concludes that the beneficiary's work experience has taught her equivalent 
skills to those taught in seventeen different classes, including several programming and software 
design/engineering courses. However, Dr. does not explain how he came to that 
conclusion, such as exactly which bodies of specialized knowledge the beneficiary gained through 
which particular job duties, and how such knowledge correlates to the listed classes. Again, we 
note, as the director duly noted, that is an firm. Dr. · 
also concludes that the beneficiary's three years of work experience - which is equivalent to one 
year of academic coursework - is equivalent a Bachelor's degree in Management Information 
Systems. However, he does not explain how he came to this conclusion, particularly considering 
that the beneficiary's bachelor's degree is in and her graduate degree is in 
As such, these are conclusory statements that are not entitled to 
evidentiary weight. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of St4fici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 165. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 21 
We further find insufficient evidence to establish that ' _ 
_ 
has a program for 
granting college level credit based on an individual's training and/or work experience in the 
particular soecialtv. as required the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l). While the letters 
from Dr. the Office of the Registrar, and Dr. all assert that the College has "a 
prog ram" for granting credit based upon an individual's training and/or work experience, they do 
not specify that such a program exists in the particular specialty, i.e., in Management Information 
Systems or a computer-related field. Specifically, the letter from the Office of the Registrar states 
that "credit-granting policies may vary on a department-to-department or student-by-student basis." 
The letter from Dr. . Chair of the Department of Computer Science, states that they have a 
program "in work study fashion for matriculated students." Thus, it appears that, for a degree in 
Management Informa tion Systems or a computer-related field, the program is limited to 
matriculated students who are also enrolled in a work study program. Based on the limitations 
imposed on this particular program, we cannot find that it fully equates to a program for granting 
college level credit "based on an individual's training and/or work experience in the particular 
specialty," as required by the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(/). 
Lastly, the petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary's 
training and/or work experience included the theoretical and practical application of specialized 
know ledge required by the specialty occupation; that her experience was gained while working with 
peers, supervisors, or subordinates who have a degree or its equivalent in the specialty occupation; 
and that the beneficiary has recognition of expertise in the specialty evidenced by at least one type 
of documentation specified in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). 
Based on the above, the evidence of record contains insufficient evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. For this additional reason, 
the petition will be denied. 
VII. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
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), ajj'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004) (noting that we conduct appellate review on a de novo basis). 
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, qff'd. 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."). 
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. In visa petition proceedings, it 
(b)(6)