dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

ldentifytng dab deleted to 
prevd dearly unwarrantec 
;masion of oersoaal odmm 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 03 21 1 50601 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: APR 1 2 2006 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 21 1 50601 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director of the service center denied the nonirnrnigrant visa petition and the matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (MO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be 
denied. 
The petitioner provides software and development services. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as a full-time 
programmer analyst level one. The petitioner, therefore, endeavors to classi@ the beneficiary as a 
nonirnmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1 10 l(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition on the ground that the proposed position fails to qualify as a specialty 
occupation; and the petitioner failed to comply with section 212(n)(l) of the Act. On appeal, counsel submits 
a brief and previously submitted evidence. 
The record of proceeding before the MO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The AAO will first address the director's determination that the proposed position fails to qualify as a specialty 
occupation. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of the 
following criteria: 
(I) 
 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 
EAC 03 21 1 50601 
Page 3 
(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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(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. 
The petitioner provides consulting and contractual services in information technology and it seeks the 
beneficiary's services as a full-time programmer analyst level one. Evidence of the beneficiary's duties 
 * 
includes: the Form 1-129; the attachments accompanying the Form 1-129; the company support letter; and the 
petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. 
According to the director, the petitioner's response to the request for additional evidence failed to address the 
request for evidence of the beneficiary's work and the projects that the beneficiary had worked on since 
entering into employment with the petitioner in July 2001. The director properly requested evidence of prior 
employment, which the petitioner failed to provide. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a 
material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(8). As the petitioner 
failed to provide the requested evidence of the beneficiary's work and prior projects, the petitioner has not 
established that it will employ the beneficiary temporarily in a specialty occupation. Section 
lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). The AAO therefore concurs with the 
director's conclusion that the proposed position fails to qualify as a specialty occupation under 
8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Each nonimmigrant petition is a separate proceeding with a separate record. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.8(d). In 
making a determination of statutory eligibility, CIS is limited to the information contained in the record of 
proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(16)(ii). 
The director also denied the petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply with section 212(n)(l) 
of the Act, which deals with the labor condition application that accompanies the filing of the H-1B petition. 
With respect to the labor condition application violation, it would be appropriate for the director to refer the 
violation to the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division. 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proposed position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.