dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-T-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 6, 2015 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a custom software programming, analysis, design, development, testing and 
implementation firm, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a software quality assurance tester and to 
classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 
1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The Director reviewed the information and determined that the Petitioner had not established 
eligibility for the benefit sought. The Director denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner 
(1) does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in accordance 
with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions; (2) does not comply with the Labor 
Condition Application (LCA) requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(l); and (3) does not 
establish that it will be a "United States employer" having an employer-employee relationship with 
the Beneficiary as an H-lB temporary employee. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The record of proceeding contains: (1) the Petitioner's Form I -129 and supporting documentation; 
(2) the Director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the Petitioner's response to the RFE; ( 4) the 
Director's decision; and (5) the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion and supporting 
documentation. We reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision. 
1 
For the reasons that will be discussed below, we agree with the Director's decision that the Petitioner 
does not establish eligibility for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the Director's decision will not be 
disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the support letter, the Petitioner provided the duties of the proffered position. In addition, the 
Petitioner stated that "[a] Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science and Engineering or related is 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
Matter of N-T-, Inc. 
required, together with at least 3-5 years relevant experience" for the proffered position. In the same 
letter, the Petitioner also stated that the proffered position "requires a Masters and Bachelor of 
Science degree, or its equivalent, in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Computer 
Applications, Management Information Systems, Electrical Engineering, Electronics Engineering, or 
a degree with specialized course work in mathematics, programming or equivalent experience." 
Thereafter, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided a revised job description, along with the 
approximate percentage of time the beneficiary will spend performing each duty, as follows:2 
The purpose of this position is to design, develop, configure and implement business 
applications, test plans/programs and scripts. This is accomplished by performing 
tests on system modifications and preparing for implementation; identifies and 
performs complex analysis of business critical scenarios including Disaster Recovery 
testing, Emergency Management scenarios, testing suing Table Top, Parallel mode, 
Simulation, Fall over and Fall back tests methods and documents identified problems 
in details with program function, output, online screen or content, and interfacing 
with end users to determine the system testing requirements to improve systems 
efficiency, accountability and workflow. Other duties include assisting with business 
and IT recovery strategies and solutions, test plan development, impart awareness 
training programs, participate in product design reviews and providing valuable input 
on function requirements, schedules and/or potential problems. 
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS: 
Code Essential Functions %Time 
1 Design test plans, scenarios, scripts, or procedures. 55 
Develop testing programs that address areas such 
as database impacts, software scenarios, regression 
testing, negative testing, error or bug retests, or 
usability. Identify, design, develop and perform 
complex analysis of business critical scenarios, 
perform the tests and document in detail the 
problems using bug tracking system and report 
defects to software developers. Monitor the team 
on bug resolution efforts; perform regressive 
testing until its resolution. 
2 Plan, develop and manage test schedules or 25 
strategies in accordance with project scope and/or 
2 We observe that the wording of the duties provided by the Petitioner for the proffered position in response to the RFE is 
taken almost verbatim from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) OnLine's list of tasks associated with a 
software quality assurance engineer and tester position. 
2 
Afatter of N-T-. Inc. 
delivery dates. Document software test cases in 
database(s), bugs and other required 
documentation to ensure technical accuracy, 
compliance, or completeness, or to mitigate risks. 
Develop or specify standards, methods, or 
procedures to determine product quality or release 
readiness. Investigate and analyze complex 
customer problems referred by technical support. 
Review requirements, specifications, and user 
documentation and implement tests cases to ensure 
compliance. 
3 Conduct audits; provide feedback and 15 
recommendations to developers on software 
usability and functionality, monitor program 
performance to ensure efficient and problem-free 
operations, conduct software compatibility tests 
with programs, hardware, operating systems, or 
network environments. Identify program deviance 
from standards, and suggest modifications to 
ensure compliance. 
4 Provide technical support during software 5 
installation and or configuration. Participate in 
Business Continuity Planning (BCP) and 
recommend improvements and best practices. 
Further, the Petitioner stated that the position requires "a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, 
Computer Engineering, Computer Applications, Management In±ormation Systems or a related 
field." In addition, in the same letter, the Petitioner stated "the candidate must possess a four-year 
degree in Computer Science and Engineering, Management Information Systems, or a closely 
related field." 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
We will first address the issue of whether the Petitioner's proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. For an H-IB petition to be granted, the Petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to 
establish that it will employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. 
A. Legal Framework 
To meet its burden of proof in this regard, the Petitioner must establish that the employment it is 
offering to the beneficiary meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 
3 
Matter of N-T-, Inc. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1 )] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must meet one of the following criteria: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the 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 a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281,291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter ofW­
F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
4 
Matter of N-T-, Inc. 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 387. 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 vvith, 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. Chertoff, 484 
F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that 
relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular position"). Applying this standard, 
USCIS regularly approves H-lB 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. 
The Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary would be employed as a software quality assurance 
tester. However, to determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS 
does not simply rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined 
with the nature of the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. users 
must examine the ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. lvfeissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is 
not the title of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position 
actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for 
entry into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review, we observe that the Petitioner's job description submitted in response to the RFE is 
recited virtually verbatim from the O*NET OnLine Summary Report's list of duties associated with 
software quality assurance engineer and tester.3 Providing job duties for a proffered position from 
O*NET or other Internet source is generally not sufficient for establishing H-IB eligibility. That is, 
3 For additional information, see O*NET OnLine, available at http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/ 15-1199.0 I (last 
visited Sept. 29, 20 15). 
5 
Matter of N-T-, Inc. 
while this type of description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that may be 
performed within an occupational category, it generally cannot be relied upon by a Petitioner when 
discussing the duties attached to specific employment for H -1 B approval as this type of generic 
description does not adequately convey the substantive work that the Beneficiary will perform on a 
day-to-day basis. In establishing a position as qualifying as a specialty occupation, a Petitioner must 
describe the specific duties and responsibilities to be performed by a Beneficiary in the context of 
the Petitioner's (or client's) business operations, demonstrate that a legitimate need for an employee 
exists, and substantiate that it has H-1B caliber work for the beneficiary for the period of 
employm.ent requested in the petition. 
Further, we find that the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the minimum 
requirements for the proffered position. In the letter of support, the Petitioner stated that "[a] 
Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science and Engineering or related is required, together with at least 
3-5 years relevant experience." However, in the same letter, the Petitioner stated that the proffered 
position "requires a Masters and Bachelor of Science degree, or its equivalent, in Computer Science, 
Computer Engineering, Computer Applications, Management Information Systems, Electrical 
Engineering, Electronics Engineering, or a degree with specialized course work in mathematics, 
programming or equivalent experience." In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the 
position requires "a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Computer 
Applications, Management Information Systems or a related field." In addition, in the same letter, 
the Petitioner stated "the candidate must possess a four-year degree in Computer Science and 
Engineering, Management Information Systems, or a closely related field." The Petitioner also 
submitted a copy of its job posting for the proffered position, which states that the position requires a 
"Masters [sic] & Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, (or) Computer Applications (or) 
Mathematics (or) a related field." No explanation for the variances was provided.4 
Furthermore, 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 
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. 
4 The Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the minimum educational requirement for the proffered 
position. It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective 
evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits 
competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 J&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-T-, Inc. 
In the instant case, the record of proceeding is devoid of substantive infmmation from the end-client 
regarding not only the specific job duties to be performed by the Beneficiary, but also information 
regarding whatever the client may or may not have specified with regard to the educational 
credentials of persons to be assigned to its projects. The record of proceeding does not contain 
sufficient corroborating documentation on this issue from, or endorsed by, the end-client, the 
company that will actually be utilizing the Beneficiary's services (according to the Petitioner).5 
The failure to establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary 
precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.P.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. 
Nevertheless, assuming that the proffered duties as described in the record would in fact be the 
duties to be performed by the Beneficiary, we will analyze them and the evidence of record to 
determine whether the proffered position as described would qualify as a specialty occupation. To 
that end and to make a determination as to whether the employment described above qualifies as a 
specialty occupation, we turn to the criteria at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty , or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement.for entry into the particular position 
We will first review the record of proceeding in relation to the criterion at 8 C .P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
USCIS recognizes the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety 
of occupations that it addresses. 6 In the LCA, the Petitioner asserted that the proffered position 
corresponds to the occupational classification "Computer Occupations, All Other" - SOC 
(ONET/OES) code 15-1199, at a Level II (qualified) wage.7 
5 As will be discussed in further detail below, it appears that the end-client is 
6 All references are to the 2014-2015 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/OCO /. 
7 The occupational category designated by a petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and 
responsibilities of a proffered position , and USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. However , to satisfY the first criterion, the burden of 
Matter of N-T-, Inc. 
We reviewed the Handbook regarding the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All 
Other." However, the Handbook does not provide a detailed narrative account nor does it provide 
summary data for this occupational category. More specifically, the Handbook does not provide the 
typical duties and responsibilities for positions located within the "Computer Occupations, All 
Other" occupational category. It also does not provide any information regarding the academic 
and/or professional requirements for these positions. Thus, the Handbook does not support the claim 
that the occupational category here is one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is 
a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We note that there are occupational categories which are not covered in detail by the Handbook, as 
well as occupations for which the Handbook does not provide any information. The Handbook 
states the following about these occupations: 
Although employment for hundreds of occupations are covered in detail in the 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, this page presents summary data on additional 
occupations for which employment projections are prepared but detailed occupational 
information is not developed. For each occupation, the Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) code, the occupational definition, 2012 employment, the May 
2012 median annual wage, the projected employment change and growth rate from 
2012 to 2022, and education and training categories are presented. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
"Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/ About/Data-for­
Occupations-Not-Covered-in-Detail.htm (last visited Sep. 29, 2015). 
Thus, the narrative of the Handbook indicates that there are many occupations for which only brief 
summaries are presented and that detailed occupational profiles for these occupations are not 
proof remains on the petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would 
normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
Further, the "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by DOL provides a description ofthe wage levels. 
A Level II wage rate is described by DOL as follows: 
Level II (qualified) wage rates are assigned to job offers for qualified employees who have attained, 
either through education or experience, a good understanding of the occupation. They perform 
moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. An indicator that the job request warrants a 
wage determination at Level II would be a requirement for years of education and/or experience that 
are generally required as described in the O*NET Job Zones. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/ 
pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ll_2009.pdf. 
0 
Matter of N-T-, Inc. 
developed. 8 The Handbook suggests that for at least some of the occupations, little meaningful 
information could be developed. 
Accordingly, in certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. When the Handbook does not 
support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the statutory and regulatory 
provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to provide persuasive 
evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies the statutory and regulatory 
provisions, including this or one of the other three criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the 
Handbook's support on the issue. In such case, it is the Petitioner's responsibility to provide 
probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other objection, authoritative sources) that supports a 
finding that the particular position in question qualifies as a specialty occupation. Whenever more 
than one authoritative source exists, an adjudicator will consider and weigh all of the evidence 
presented to determine whether the particular position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Upon review of the record, the Petitioner has not done so in the instant case. That is, the Petitioner 
has not submitted probative evidence that normally the minimum requirement for positions falling 
under the "Computer Occupations, All Other" occupational category is at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even if it did, the record lacks sufficient evidence to 
support a finding that the particular position proffered here would normally have such a minimum, 
specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent. 
In the instant case, the duties and requirements of the pos1t10n as described in the record of 
proceeding do not indicate that this particular position proffered by the Petitioner is one for which a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a spec(fic specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a Petitioner to establish that a requirement 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions 
that are identifiable as being (1) in the Petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and 
also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. 
8 We note that occupational categories for which the Handbook only includes summary data includes a range of 
occupations, including for example, postmasters and mail superintendents; agents and business managers of artists, 
performers, and athletes; farm and home management advisors; audio visual and multimedia collections specialists; 
clergy; merchandise displayers and window trimmers; radio operators; first-line supervisors of police and detectives; 
crossing guards; travel guides; agricultural inspectors, as well as others. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-T-, Inc. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook (or other authoritative source) reports a standard industry-wide requirement for at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference 
the previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's 
professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter from of 
The letter is dated December 21, 2014. In the letter, provided a summary of his 
education and experience. We note that while he may, in fact, be a recognized authority on various 
topics, he does not provide sufficient information regarding the basis of his claimed expertise on this 
particular issue. claims that he is qualified to comment on the position of software 
quality assurance tester because of his years of experience evaluating professionals and working as a 
professor at various universities. However, without further clarification, it is unclear how his 
experience would translate to expertise or specialized knowledge on the issue here. 
opinion letter does not cite specific instances in which his past opinions have 
been accepted or recognized as authoritative on this particular issue. There is no indication that he 
has published any work or conducted any research or studies pertinent to the educational 
requirements for software quality assurance testers (or parallel positions) in the Petitioner's industry 
for similar organizations, and no indication of recognition by professional organizations that he is an 
authority on those specific requirements. The opinion letter contains no evidence that it was based 
on scholarly research conducted by in the specific area upon which he is opining. 
For instance, in reaching his determination, provides no documentary support for 
his ultimate conclusion regarding the education required for the position (e.g., statistical surveys, 
authoritative industry or government publications, or professional studies). asserts 
a general industry educational standard for organizations similar to the Petitioner, without 
referencing any supporting authority or any empirical basis for the pronouncement. 
Upon review of the opinion letter, we find no indication that possesses any 
knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered position beyond the job description. The fact that he 
attributes a degree requirement to such a generalized treatment of the proffered position undermines 
the credibility of his opinion. does not demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge 
of the Petitioner's specific business operations or how the duties of the position would actually be 
performed in the context of the Petitioner's business enterprise. His opinion does not relate his 
conclusion to specific, concrete aspects of this Petitioner's business operations to demonstrate a 
sound factual basis for the conclusion about the educational requirements for the particular position 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-T-, Inc. 
here at issue. For example, there is no evidence that has visited the Petitioner 's 
business, observed the Petitioner's employees, interviewed them about the nature of their work, or 
documented the knowledge that they apply on the job. provides general 
conclusory statements regarding the proffered position, but he does not provide a substantive, 
analytical basis for his opinion and ultimate conclusions. 
Further, there is no indication that the Petitioner advised that it characterized the 
proffered position in the LCA as a Level II position under the occupational category "Computer 
Occupations, All Other." As noted above, DOL wage-level guidance specifies that a Level II 
designation is reserved for positions involving only moderately complex tasks requiring limited 
judgment. We consider this a significant omission, as it appears that would have 
found this information relevant for his opinion letter. Moreover, without this information, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that possessed the requisite information necessary 
to adequately assess the nature of the Petitioner 's position and appropriately determine similar 
positions based upon job duties and responsibilities. 
In summary, and for each and all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the advisory 
opinion rendered by is not probative evidence to establish the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. The conclusions reached by lack the requisite 
specificity and detail and are not supported by independent, objective evidence demonstrating the 
manner in which he reached such conclusions. There is an inadequate factual foundation established 
to support the opinion and we find that the opinion is not in accord with other information in the 
record. 
We may, in our discretion , use as advisory opuuon 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). As a reasonable exercise of its discretion we discount the 
advisory opinion letter as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). For 
efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion and analysis regarding the opinion 
letter into each of the bases in this decision for dismissing the appeal. 
Thus, based upon a complete review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established that a requirement of a bachelor 's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is common to the Petitioner 's industry in positions that are (1) in the Petitioner's 
industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to 
the Petitioner. For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative 
prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty , or its equivalent 
11 
Matter of N-T-, Inc. 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered pos1t1on qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner described the proffered position and its business operations. Upon review, we find that 
the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
proffered position. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed 
course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is 
necessary to perform the duties it may believe are so complex and unique. While a few related 
courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or 
unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. The record does not establish 
which of the duties, if any, of the proffered position would be so complex or unique as to be 
distinguishable from those of similar but non-degreed or non-specialty degreed employment. 9 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references his 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner has not satisfied the second 
alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
spec?fic specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. To 
this end, we review the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position, and any other documentation submitted by a 
petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. 
9 
Again, the Petitioner designated the proffered position on the LCA at a Level II wage level. This designation indicates 
that the proffered position is a position for an employee who will only perform moderately complex tasks that require 
limited judgment relative to others within the occupation. Such a designation is inconsistent with a claim that the duties 
of the position are complex and unique as such a position would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level III 
(experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) position, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage. For example, a 
Level IV (fully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and diversified 
knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems." For additional information regarding wage levels as defined by 
DOL, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/ 
NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_ll_ 2009.pdf. 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-T-, Inc. 
To merit approval ofthe petition under this criterion, the record must establish that the imposition of 
a degree requirement by the Petitioner (or, in this case, by the client) is not merely a matter of 
preference for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated by performance requirements of the 
position. While a petitioner (or client) may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position 
requires a specific degree, that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the 
position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed 
self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the 
United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioner artificially created a token degree 
requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 
388. In other words, if a Petitioner's stated degree requirement is only designed to artificially meet 
the standards for an H-1B visa and/or to underemploy an individual in a position for which he or she 
is overqualified and if the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty degree or its 
equivalent to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition 
of a specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the 
term "specialty occupation"). 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence of record must show that the specific performance 
requirements of the position generated the recruiting and hiring history. A Petitioner's perfunctory 
declaration of a particular educational requirement will not mask the fact that the position is not a 
specialty occupation. USCIS must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on the basis 
of that examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See 
generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of 
the position, or the fact that an employer has routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but 
whether performance of 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. To interpret 
the regulations any other way would lead to absurd results: if USCIS were constrained to recognize 
a specialty occupation merely because the petitioner has an established practice of demanding 
certain educational requirements for the proffered position - and without consideration of how a 
beneficiary is to be specifically employed - then any alien with a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty could be brought into the United States to perform non-specialty occupations, so long as 
the employer required all such employees to have baccalaureate or higher degrees. See id. at 388. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a copy of its job posting for the proffered position, 
posted on August 5, 2014, three weeks before the instant petition was filed. Thus, it appears that the 
requirements in the posting depict the Petitioner's preference rather than an established practice. 
That is, the Petitioner has not submitted documentary evidence to establish that it has ever employed 
an individual in the proffered position, let alone that it required individuals serving in such positions 
to possess a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. Without more, a single job 
posting placed by a company in business since does not satisfy this criterion. 
13 
Matter C?f N-T-, Inc. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A). 
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 in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
The Petitioner claims that the nature of the specific duties of the position in the context of its 
business operations is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position and its 
business operations. However, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently 
developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. That is, the proposed duties have 
not been described with sufficient specificity to establish that they are more specialized and complex 
than other positions in the occupational category that are not usually associated with at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Furthermore, we reiterate our earlier comments and findings with regard to the implication of the 
Petitioner's designation ofthe proffered position in the LCA as a Level II (the second lowest of four 
assignable levels). Without further evidence, it is not credible that the Petitioner's proffered position 
is one with specialized and complex duties as such a position would likely be classified at a higher­
level, such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) position, requiring a 
significantly higher prevailing wage. As previously noted, a Level IV (fully competent) position is 
designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve 
unusual and complex problems." The Petitioner has submitted inadequate probative evidence to 
satisfy the criterion of the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the Petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the 
petition denied. 
II. LCA 
Next, we will discuss the Director's decision that the Petitioner does not comply with the LCA 
requirement. 
14 
Matter of N-T-, Inc. 
A. The LCA and H-1B Visa Petition Process 
In pertinent part, the Act defines an H-1B nonimmigrant worker as: 
[A]n alien ... who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... 
in a specialty occupation described in section 214(i)(l) . . . who meets the 
requirements for the occupation specified in section 214(i)(2) ... and with respect to 
whom the Secretary of Labor determines and certifies to the [Secretary of Homeland 
Security] that the intending employer has filed with the Secretary [of Labor] an 
application under section 212(n)(l) . ... 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) ofthe Act (emphasis added). 10 
In turn, section 212(n)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(l)(A), requires an employer to pay an 
H -1 B worker the higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area 
of employment" or the actual wage paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience 
and qualifications who are performing the same services. 11 See 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a); 
Venkatraman v. REI Sys., Inc., 417 F.3d 418, 422 & n.3 (4th Cir. 2005); Michal Vojtisek-Lom & 
Adm 'r Wage & Hour Div. v. Clean Air Tech. Int 'l, Inc., No. 07-97, 2009 WL 2371236, at *8 (Dep't 
of Labor Admin. Rev. Bd. July 30, 2009). 
Implemented through the LCA certification process, section 212(n)(1) is intended to protect U.S. 
workers' wages by eliminating economic incentives or advantages in hiring temporary foreign 
workers. See, e.g, 65 Fed. Reg. 80,110, 80,110-111, 80,202 (2000). The LCA currently requires 
Petitioners to describe, inter alia, the number of workers sought, the pertinent visa classification for 
such workers, their job title and occupational classification, the prevailing wage, the actual rate of 
pay, and the place(s) of employment. 
To promote the U.S. worker protection goals of a statutory and regulatory scheme that allocates 
responsibilities sequentially between the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the U.S. Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS), a prospective employer must file an LCA and receive certification 
from DOL before an H-1B petition may be submitted to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS). 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(l); 20 C.F.R. § 655.700(b)(2). 12 If an employer does 
10 In accordance with section 1517 oftitle XV of the Homeland Security Act of2002 (HSA), Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 
Stat. 2135, any reference to the Attorney General in a provision of the Act describing functions which were transferred 
from the Attorney General or other U.S. Department of Justice official to U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
by the HSA "shall be deemed to refer to the Secretary" of Homeland Security. See 6 U.S.C. § 557 (2003) (codifying 
HSA, tit. XV,§ 1517); 6 U.S.C. § 542 note; 8 U.S.C. § 1551 note. 
11 The prevailing wage may be determined based on the arithmetic mean of the wages of workers similarly employed in 
the area of intended employment. 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a)(2)(ii). 
12 Upon receiving DOL's certification, the prospective employer then submits the certified LCA to USCIS with an H-1 B 
petition on behalf of a specific worker. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(A), (2)(i)(E), ( 4)(iii)(B)(l ). DOL reviews LCAs "for 
completeness and obvious inaccuracies," and will certify the LCA absent a determination that the application is 
15 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-T-, Inc. 
not submit the LCA to USCIS in support of a new or amended H-lB petition, the process is 
incomplete and the LCA is not certified to the Secretary of Homeland Security. See section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 655.700(b); see also 56 
Fed. Reg. 37,175, 37,177 (1991); 57 Fed. Reg. 1316, 1318 (1992) (discussing filing sequence). 
In the event of a material change to the terms and conditions of employment specified in the original 
petition, the Petitioner must file an amended or new petition with USCIS with a corresponding LCA. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E). Furthermore, Petitioners must "immediately notify the Service of any 
changes in the terms and conditions of employment of a beneficiary which may affect eligibility" for 
H-1B status and, if they will continue to employ the beneficiary, file an amended petition. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(11 )(i)(A). 
A change in the place of employment of a beneficiary to a geographical area requmng a 
corresponding LCA be certified to DHS with respect to that beneficiary may affect eligibility for 
H-1B status and is, therefore, a material change for purposes of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E) and 
(ll)(i)(A). When there is a material change in the terms and conditions of employment, the 
petitioner must file an amended or new H-lB petition with the corresponding LCA. 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E). See also Matter ofSimeio Solutions, 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015). 
B. Analysis 
In this matter, the Petitioner claimed in both the Form I-129 and the certified LCA that the 
Beneficiary's place of employment was located in California 
. California Metropolitan Statistical Area). 13 The Petitioner did not request other worksites 
and did not submit an itinerary. 14 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) (requiring an itinerary for 
services performed in more than one location). 
incomplete or obviously inaccurate. Section 212(n)(l )(G)(ii) of the Act. In contrast, USC IS must determine whether the 
attestations and content of an LCA correspond to and support the H-1 B visa petition, including the specific place of 
employment. 20 C.F.R . § 655.705(b); see generally 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B). 
13 With certain limited exceptions, the applicable DOL regulations define the term "place of employment " as the 
worksite or physical location where the work actually is performed by the H-1 B nonimmigrant. See 20 C.F .R. § 
655 .715. The Office of Management and Budget established Metropolitan Statistical Areas to provide nationally 
consistent geographic delineations for collecting , tabulating and publishing statistic s. See 44 U.S.C. § 3504(e)(3) ; 31 
U.S.C . § 1104(d); Exec. Order No . 10,253, 16 Fed. Reg. 5605 (June 11 , 1951); 75 Fed. Reg. 37,246, 37,246-252 (2010) 
(discussing and defining , inter alia, Metropolitan Statistical Areas). 
14 It must be noted for the record that the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the Beneficiary 's 
work site. For instance , on the Form 1-129 (page 4), the Petitioner provided the following information: 
Will the beneficiary work off-site? X No Yes 
However, on the Form 1-129 (page 19), the Petitioner indicated the following: 
Part D. Off-Site Assignment ofH-1B Beneficiaries 
No X Yes a. The beneficiary of this petition will be assigned to work at an off-site location for all or part 
of the period for which H-1 B classification is sought. 
16 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-T-, Inc. 
Thereafter, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner claimed that it has a contract with 
who in turn has a contract with to complete a project located at 
Wisconsin 
1
) With the response, the Petitioner submitted a 
new LCA that provided a new worksite - in Wisconsin 
WI Metropolitan Statistical Area) - as the Beneficiary's place of employment. 
16 
The worksite 
is located in a metropolitan statistical area differing from the worksite listed on the original petition. 
A change in the terms and conditions of employment of a beneficiary which may affect eligibility 
under section 101(a)(l5)(H) of the Act is a material change. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E); see 
also id. § 214.2(h)(ll )(i)(A) (requiring that a Petitioner file an amended petition to notify US CIS of 
any material changes affecting eligibility of continued employment); Matter of Simeio Solutions, 26 
I&N Dec. at 542. 
Because section 212(n) of the Act ties the prevailing wage to the "area of employment," a change in 
the Beneficiary's place of employment to a geographical area not covered in the original LCA would 
be material for both the LCA and the Form I-129 visa petition, as such a change may affect 
eligibility under section 101(a)(l5)(H) of the Act. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 655.735(±). If, for example, 
the prevailing wage is higher at the new place of employment, the Beneficiary's eligibility for 
continued employment in H-lB status will depend on whether his or her wage for the work 
performed at the new location will be sufficient. As such, for an LCA to be effective and correspond 
to an H-lB petition, it must specify the Beneficiary's place(s) of employment. 17 
Having materially changed the Beneficiary's authorized place of employment to a geographical area 
not covered by the original LCA, the Petitioner was required to immediately notify USCIS and file 
an amended or new H-lB petition, along with a corresponding LCA certified by DOL, with both 
documents indicating the relevant change. 18 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E), (h)(ll)(i)(A). By not 
No explanation for this variance was provided. It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the 
record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice 
unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 
at 592. 
15 Notably, public records indicate that this address is the office address of 
Thus , it appears that is the 
en d-el ient. 
16 The record here indicates that the new place of employment was not a short-term placement. See generally 20 C.F.R . 
§§ 655.715, 655.735. The Petitioner did not claim, and we do not find, that this new work location falls under a "non­
worksite" location as described at 20 C.F.R. § 655.715 or a short-term placement or assignment as described at 20 C.F.R. 
§ 655.7355. 
17 A change in the beneficiary's place of employment may impact other eligibility criteria, as well. For example, at the 
time of filing, the petitioner must have complied with the DOL posting requirements at 20 C.F.R. § 655.734. 
Additionally, if the beneficiary will be performing services in more than one location, the petitioner must submit an 
itinerary with the petition listing the dates and locations. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B); see also id. § I 03.2(b)(l ). 
18 Here the Petitioner submitted a new LCA certified for the Beneficiary's place of employment in WI in 
response to the RFE. This LCA was not previously certified to USCIS with respect to the Beneficiary and, therefore , it 
had to be submitted to USCIS as part of an amended or new petition before the Beneficiary would be permitted to begin 
1'1 
Matter of N-T-, Inc. 
filing an amended petition with a new LCA, or by attempting to submit a preexisting LCA that has 
never been certified to USCIS with respect to a specific worker, a petitioner may impede efforts to 
verify wages and working conditions. Full compliance with the LCA and H-1 B petition process, 
including adhering to the proper sequence of submissions to DOL and USCIS, is critical to the U.S. 
worker protection scheme established in the Act and necessary for H -1 B visa petition approval. 
III. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE 
Finally, we will briefly address the issue of whether or not the Petitioner qualifies as a United States 
employer with standing to file the H -1 B petition. As discussed above, the Petitioner has provided 
inconsistent information regarding the Beneficiary's work site. 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 not established 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 an 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). There is insufficient evidence detailing where the Beneficiary will work, the 
specific projects to be performed by the Beneficiary, or for which company the Beneficiary will 
ultimately perform these services. Therefore, the Director's decision is affirmed, and the appeal is 
dismissed for this additional reason. 
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
We may deny an application or petition that does not comply with the technical requirements of the 
law 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), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 145 (noting that the 
AAO conducts 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, aff'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 
working in this place of employment. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E). 
18 
Matter of N-T-, Inc. 
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. 19 In visa petition proceedings, it 
is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 128. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of N-T-, Inc., ID# 13950 (AAO Oct. 6, 2015) 
19 Because these issues preclude approval of the petition, we will not address any of the additional deficiencies we have 
observed on appeal. 
19