dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-T-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 20, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , a software development services provider, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "systems analyst II" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a 
position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that specialty occupation work was available for the Beneficiary when the petition was 
filed. 1 The Petitioner filed an appeal, which we dismissed concluding that the record did not 
demonstrate the substantive nature of the proffered position, and did not establish that the job duties 
require an educational background , or its equivalent , commensurate with a specialty occupation. We 
also concluded that the Petitioner had not overcome the Director's decision regarding speculative 
employment and concluded that the record did not establish the Petitioner's employer-employee 
relationship with the Beneficiary. The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen and a motion to 
reconsider. 
Upon review, we will grant the motion to reopen in part to consider the Petitioner's brief and evidence 
submitted with the appeal. However , as discussed below, we will ultimately deny the motion to reopen 
and deny the motion to reconsider. 
1 In the denial decision , the Director acknowledged that the evidence appears to support that, at present , the Benefici ary is 
employed in a specialty occupation and that the Petitioner has an employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary . 
Although the Director acknowledged that, at present, the Beneficiary appears to be employed in a specialty occupation 
and currently has an employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary , we withdrew the Director 's acknowledgement , 
as the Petitioner must establish all eligibility requirements have been satisfied from the time of filing and continuing 
through adjudication. See 8 C.F.R . § 103.2(b)(l). The decision was not definitive , and implied without discussion that 
the Petitioner had not satisfied these issues at the time of filing the petition . The totality of the record raised credibility 
concerns as well as lacked probative evidence establishing these eligibility issues . In our de nova review we provided the 
necessary discussion and conclusions on these issues . 
Matter of M-T-, Inc. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such as, 
for instance, submission of a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the 
correct fee), and show proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l). 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must (1) state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding; and (2) be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider is based on legal grounds and must (1) state the reasons for 
reconsideration; (2) establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy; 
and (3) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the 
initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Specialty Occupation 
1. Motion to Reopen 
The Petitioner submits additional documentation to establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. For the reasons below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established new facts 
sufficient to satisfy the requirements to reopen this matter on the issue of specialty occupation. 
We initially determined that the Petitioner's description of the duties of the proffered position was 
vague. 2 The Petitioner asserts on motion that the job duties it provided were clearly stated but does 
not provide evidence or argument supporting its assertion regarding its iteration of the proposed duties. 
The Petitioner, however, does submit a requisition for employment from the managed service provider 
(MSP). 3 The duties, as noted in the requisition, differ significantly from the Petitioner's version of 
duties. Although some of the tasks the Petitioner outlined may fall within the parameters of the duties 
listed in the requisition, the duties in the requisition are also not sufficiently detailed so that we may 
understand what tasks will be required of the Beneficiary. We also observe that the requisition 
highlights more significant discrepancies between the MSP and the Petitioner's expectations in regard 
to the Beneficiary's level of responsibility. The MSP expects the Beneficiary to provide oversight and 
final review of design specification, lead efforts to identify and evaluate alternative solutions, act as a 
design leader, and prepare high-level proposals that identify viable options to address the client's 
needs. The requisition appears to create an expectation of higher responsibility in carrying out the 
broadly described duties listed, than the duties outlined in the Petitioner's iteration of duties. Overall, 
neither description is sufficiently concrete and informative to communicate (1) the actual work the 
2 We also reviewed the Beneficiary's weekly reports but the work described was perfunctory and insufficient to establish 
that the duties the Beneficiary had performed comprised the duties of a specialty occupation. For example, the Beneficiary 
had gathered requirements and contributed to writing user stories. The record is insufficient to establish how these duties 
require 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. 
3 On motion, the Petitioner clarifies the mid-vendor is the managed services provider (MSP) for the end-client and refers 
to the requisition as from the end-client. The "requisition" does not refer to the end-client, except to note that the manager 
of the 1 t project is with the end-client. 
2 
Matter of M-T-, Inc. 
Beneficiary will perform on a day-to-day basis; (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization 
of the tasks; or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level of education of 
highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
There are other significant discrepancies between the Petitioner's expectations and the MSP's 
expectations of the proffered position. The Petitioner stated that it requires its "Systems Analysts II 
[to] possess the minimum of a Bachelor's Degree in an industry recognized field, including Computer 
Science, CIS, Computer Applications, Engineering, Math, Electronics, Science, Technology, 
Communications, Business Administration, Management, or a related field." 4 The requisition the 
Petitioner submits on motion as the work to which the Beneficiary was assigned requires "6 or more 
years work experience in an application development and/or systems analysis role or equivalent 
combination of transferable experience and education" and a "[b] achelor' s degree in an IT related field 
or equivalent work experience" among other requirements. As discussed in our previous decision, the 
Petitioner's educational requirements are much broader than a "bachelor's degree in an IT related 
field." 
Moreover, the Petitioner designated the proffered position which it states is the position on the 
requisition as a wage Level II on the certified labor condition application (LCA). 5 However, according 
to the requisition this position requires six years of experience in addition to a bachelor's degree in an 
IT related field. If the proffered position is a "Computer Systems Analysts" position, it is classified 
as a Job Zone 4 occupation with a Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating of "7.0 < 8.0."6 
More than four years of required experience in addition to a bachelor's degree for a Job Zone 4 
occupation requires a three-level increase in the wage level designated on the LCA. 7 If the Petitioner 
is actually contracting the Beneficiary's services to perform the services listed in the requisition, 
services that require a bachelor's degree in an IT related field and six years of specific experience, the 
Petitioner submitted an LCA that shows it is grossly underpaying the Beneficiary for her services. 8 
The discrepancies listed in the Petitioner's education and experience requirements and the education 
and experience requirements listed in the requisition undermine the credibility of the Petitioner and 
casts doubt on the actual nature of the proposed position. 
4 On motion, the Petitioner notes that its minimum formal educational requirements are the minimum requirements it is 
willing to consider and that it considers other factors when the applicant possesses an "off-target degree, such as Business 
Administration or Science." However, here we must consider the minimum degrees and experience the proffered position 
actually requires in order to perform the duties described. The Petitioner's acceptance of a wide variety of degrees with 
undefined "other factors" undermines its assertion that the position proffered here actually requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
5 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB 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. Section 212(n)(l) 
ofthe Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
6 Department of Labor (DOL). Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009) (DOL guidance), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009.pdf 
7 Id. 
8 The purpose of the LCA wage requirement is "to protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate any economic incentive or 
advantage in hiring temporary foreign workers." It also serves to protect H-lB workers from wage abuses. See section 
212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a). While DOL certifies the LCA, USCIS determines whether the LCA's content 
corresponds to and supp011s the H-lB petition. 
3 
Matter of M-T-, Inc. 
The Petitioner also submits a position evaluation prepared b6 I Professor at the 
School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at University. I repeats the 
Petitioner's description of duties and opines that the proffered position "requires the theoretical and 
practical application of an advanced, highly specialized body of knowledge in the field of Computer 
Science, Computer Information Systems, and related fields, and thus the attainment of at least a 
Bachelor's degree or its equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation." D I I appears unaware of the Petitioner's acceptance of a number of degrees, including degrees of 
general applicability for the proffered position. Also I I while noting that several courses 
will provide training for the described position, does not offer a cogent analysis discussing why a 
detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree, or its equivalent is required for the position; 
instead he offers conclusory statements. While a few related courses may be beneficial in performing 
certain duties of the position, the record here, including,_ ____ _.t s conclusory opinion, does not 
demonstrate 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 Petitioner has not offered new facts on motion to establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under the statute and regulations. 
2. Motion to Reconsider 
The Petitioner also asserts that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. 
The Petitioner questions whether we misinterpreted the statutory and regulatory requirements to 
establish a position as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner specifically asserts that we did not offer an analysis of the proffered position under the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]) and the first prong of the second criterion. We reiterate 
that the position as described by the Petitioner is too generic to offer an understanding of what exactly 
the Beneficiary will do in the proffered position. Jargon-laden tasks, such as "[w]ork in an Agile 
environment, determine Project Deliverables and timelines for I I- Group Sales Platform;" 
"[c]onduct requirement sessions and document requirements for the redesign of the Client Installation 
System used for the group setup within the quoting tool;" and "[s]print planning and defining User 
stories, determining points and creating/assigning tasks in Rally. Capacity planning based on resource 
allocation," are too general to establish that the proffered position is a "Computer Systems Analysts" 
occupation, as designated on the LCA. 9 
9 Additionally, tasks such as "[ w ]ork closely with the new e-enrollment team of [the end-client] to ensure that the tool is 
integrated with the existing [end-client] enrollment process and identified an [sic] enhancements required and potential 
impacts," and "[p ]articipate/conduct daily stand ups for Iteration tracking and performed integration, Admin tool testing. 
UAT Support and Release Production support" appear to include duties already performed (emphasis added). It is not 
clear that the end-client's project will continue to require the Beneficiary to perform these tasks. Further. the tasks do not 
clearly state what is expected of the Beneficiary, rather they present a general overview of duties that relate to the 
end-client's undefined technology systems. The generality of the tasks, the lack of information regarding the specific 
project - including roadmaps and stages, and information identifying the Beneficiary's role within a specific team(s), as 
well as the lack of probative evidence regarding the Beneficiary's responsibility undermine the Petitioner's assertion that 
the duties are clearly stated. 
4 
Matter of M-T-, Inc. 
The Petitioner in this matter has not provided evidence of the actual day-to-day duties of the proffered 
position so that those duties may be analyzed to determine if the duties are the duties of a computer 
systems analyst and forth er whether the duties require a bachelor's level degree in a specific discipline, 
or the equivalent to perform the duties. 10 Here, the record is insufficient to establish that the proffered 
position is a computer systems analyst position, and farther that the generally described duties require 
both the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as the minimum 
for entry into the occupation. 11 See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining 
the term "specialty occupation). 
The Petitioner's descriptions provide little insight into the Beneficiary's day-to-day tasks, so that we 
may ascertain the level of specific knowledge that is required to perform the duties, and conclude that 
the duties are the duties of a "Computer Systems Analysts" occupation, the occupation designated on 
the LCA. The Petitioner does not sufficiently detail specific job duties, supervisory duties (if any), 
and does not include consistent information regarding any independent judgment required, or the 
amount of any supervision received for the position. 12 The Petitioner's imprecise use of descriptors 
results in a generic overview of a technical occupation. This is important as different technical 
occupations have different educational and wage requirements. The lack of detail is compounded as 
the Petitioner declines to offer its expectation of how the Beneficiary's time will be allocated. Thus 
for those duties that are more comprehensible we cannot determine whether those duties are incidental 
or primary to the position. Without a more meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence 
sufficiently concrete and informative to demonstrate that the proffered position is a "Computer 
Systems Analysts" occupation and that it requires a specialty occupation's level of knowledge in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
10 Even if the duties were sufficiently detailed to conclude that the duties of the position fall within the parameter of a 
"Computer Systems Analysts" occupation, such an occupation is not categorically a specialty occupation. According to 
the Depaitment of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), a bachelor's degree in a directly related 
discipline is not required for entry into this occupation. While the Handbook repmis that many computer systems analysts 
have technical degrees, the Handbook does not specify the degree level for these technical degrees (e.g., associate's 
degree). Sec Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems 
Analysts, at https://www.bls.gov/ ooh/computer-and-information-technology/print/ computer-systems-analysts. htm ( last 
visited Sep. 18, 2019). Further the Handbook states that business and liberal arts degrees may be acceptable. Id. Thus, 
the Handbook does not supp011 a claim that the occupational category of "Computer Systems Analysts" is one for which 
normally the minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree ( or higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
11 The Petitioner also refers to the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Summary Report for Standard 
Occupational Classification code 15-1121.00 - Computer Systems Analysts, on motion. The O*NET assigns this 
occupation a Job Zone "Four" rating, which groups it among occupations for which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's 
degree, but some do not." O*NET OnLine Summary Report for ·'15-1121.00 - Computer Systems Analysts." 
http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15- l l 21.00 (last visited Sep. 18, 2019). Significantly, O*NET OnLine does not 
indicate that a four-year bachelor's degree required by Job Zone Four occupations must be in a specific specialty directly 
related to the occupation. Again. the requirement of a general bachelor's degree for entry into the occupation does not 
establish that the occupation is a specialty occupation. The O*NET Online information does not refer to any specific 
discipline as required, therefore the information is not probative of the proffered position being a specialty occupation. 
12 On motion. the Petitioner offers the end-client's advertisements as evidence that a degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. As discussed in our previous decision and as acknowledged by 
the Petitioner on motion, the end-client's adve11isements do not describe a position that is parallel to the position proffered 
here. Thus, the advertisements do not assist in satisfying the first prong of the second criterion. 
5 
Matter of M-T-, Inc. 
The Petitioner cites to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), 
for the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is important. Diplomas 
rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is required is an occupation that requires highly 
specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained the credentialing indicating 
possession of that knowledge." The Petitioner asserts, based on this case, that "the source of that 
[body of highly specialized] knowledge may come from different fields or disciplines, or a 
combination of fields or disciplines, including those in a 'related field"' This assertion, however, 
appears to read out the second component of the statutory requirement which includes "the attainment 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry 
into the United States." For the reasons discussed in our initial decision and above, the Petitioner has 
not met its burden to establish that the particular position offered in this matter 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, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry 
into the occupation as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
The Petitioner also cites Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2017) as relevant 
here. This case also arises out of a different jurisdiction than the instant matter. Nevertheless, even if 
we considered the logic underlying the matter, we find that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
the proffered position is a specialty occupation. First, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. 
discussed our reading of the Handbook's discussion of the entry requirements for positions located 
within a different and separate occupational category "Computer Programmers" rather than the 
"Computer Systems Analysts" category designated by the Petitioner in the LCA relating to this 
case. As noted above, the Handbook specifically states that "many analysts have liberal arts degrees 
and have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere." Moreover, the court in Next 
Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) policy 
memorandum regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential treatment toward 
computer programmers, and "especially" toward companies in that particular petitioner's 
industry. However, USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited by the court in Next Generation 
Tech. Inc. 13 
We also observe that in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States 
circuit court, we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in 
matters arising even within the same district. See K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. at 719-20. Although the 
reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly 
before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter oflaw. Id. 
We have reviewed the cases presented by the Petitioner to show that we misinterpreted current policy 
and law when determining whether the Petitioner has established the particular position is a specialty 
occupation. Our review of these cases in relation to the totality of the record does not establish that 
our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy based on the evidence of 
record at the time of the initial decision. The record on motion does not provide a sufficient basis to 
reconsider the prior decision on the issue of specialty occupation. 
13 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 ''Guidance memo on HJB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H- l BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
6 
Matter of M-T-, Inc. 
B. Speculative Employment 
The Petitioner does not submit new facts sufficient to satisfy the requirement for a motion to reopen 
on this issue. However, we have considered its arguments as a motion to reconsider our decision. On 
motion, the Petitioner refers to the previous documentation submitted and claims that the 
documentation shows that it supplies many consultants to this particular end-client. Thy Petitioner 
also notes that its initial description of duties for the Beneficiary's position referred to the I._ ____ _.~ 
Group Sales Platform project, thus it must have had a specific assignment for the Beneficiary. On 
motion, the Petitioner submits the requisition for "Senior Pega Business Systems Analyst" for the 
I I' project and asserts that this document is more evidence that it had a project available for 
the Beneficiary when the petition was filed. 14 
The Petitioner misunderstands the requirements to establish eligibility for this visa classification. In 
all instances, the Petitioner's burden of proof is to establish that the Beneficiary will be employed in 
a specialty occupation and that the petition is properly supported by an LCA that corresponds to the 
actual work the Beneficiary will perform. Here, the requisition confirms that there may have been an 
open position for a "Senior Pega Business Systems Analyst" for the 'l I" project at some point, 
but it is undated, so it is unknown if this particular position was available when the petition was filed. 15 
Moreover, as discussed above, the requisition does not include a similar job description with the same 
academic and experience requirements as the position proffered by the Petitioner. That is, this 
requisition is not for the same position the Petitioner petitioned to fill in November 2016 when it filed 
the petition. 
We emphasize that the Petitioner must have a spec[fic work assignment in place for the Beneficiary 
when the petition is filed. That specific work assignment must satisfy the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of specialty occupation and the certified LCA must support the petition. Here, the 
Petitioner has offered no evidence that an assignment for a wage Level II position, with the duties it 
generally described, existed when the petition was filed. It is not enough to have a wide variety of 
potential assignments that may become available to slot the Beneficiary into when the petition is filed. 
As we previously determined, the Petitioner's plans to employ the Beneficiary, its anticipation that the 
end client/MSP would need a specific type of employee, and its expectation that the Beneficiary would 
satisfy the end-client/MSP's requirements are speculative. Speculative employment is not permitted 
in the H-lB program. See, e.g., 63 Fed. Reg. 30,419, 30,419-20 (proposed June 4, 1998)(to be codified 
at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). The Petitioner has not provided probative evidence or argument sufficient to 
reopen and reconsider the prior decision regarding this issue. 
14 We observe that this particular requisition is for services beginning January 11, 2017, thus, it does not appear that the 
project was available when the petition was filed. We also note that this requisition, as well as the work order, indicates 
the project end date is December 22, 2017, a date substantially earlier than the end of the requested employment period. 
We farther note that the Beneficiary began work for the Petitioner, as evidenced by wages it paid to the Beneficiary, on 
December 19, 2016. The Petitioner has not provided evidence of the actual work performed prior to January 11, 2017. 
This is an additional indicator that it did not have a specific assignment available for the Beneficiary when the petition was 
filed in November 2016. Again, we observe that the position identified in the requisition does not include the same duties 
and academic and experience requirements as the proffered position and would have required a significantly higher wage 
than the wage designated on the certified LCA. 
15 Again, the Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from 
the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
7 
Matter of M-T-, Inc. 
C. Employer-Employee 
On motion, the Petitioner submits its vice-president's affidavit and the end-client's organizational 
charts, to demonstrate the end-client's management of the project to which the Beneficiary is assigned. 
The Petitioner adds that it oversees the individuals assigned to the end-client facility through its nearby 
satellite office and that the Petitioner's vice president is the individual who is qualified to supervise 
the Beneficiary's technical output and performance. 
We have reviewed the information submitted but find credibility issues regarding who directs the 
Beneficiary's day-to-day work. The work order provided in response to the Director's request for 
evidence, identifies the end-client's manager as the Beneficiary's supervisor. Similarly, the 
Petitioner's employment offer to the Beneficiary states that the Petitioner's "employees will perform 
technical services under the general direction of the end client." 16 This leads to the significant issue 
of the end-client's manager directing the Beneficiary to perform services that are not within the 
parameter of the occupation and the wage level designated on the certified LCA. 
As discussed above, the requisition and other evidence in the record 17 show that the end-client desires 
individuals to carry out what appear to be different and higher responsibility tasks and also requires 
significant amounts of experience in addition to a bachelor's degree for the work performed at its 
facility. The indefinite information regarding the Beneficiary's supervision and the Petitioner's 
acknowledgement that its employees will perform technical services under the general direction of the 
end-client, raise significant questions regarding the actual control of the Beneficiary's work and 
whether such work would remain within the parameter of the work described by the Petitioner. Our 
review of the totality of the record leads us to conclude that the Beneficiary will not operate as the 
Petitioner's employee in the common-law sense, but that the Petitioner acts as a supplier of personnel 
to temporarily support projects at the end-client facility and that the control of work on such projects, 
whether specialty occupation work or not, has been relinquished to the end-client. 
The record does not include credible, probative evidence sufficient to reopen or to reconsider the prior 
decision regarding this issue. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsidering 
this matter or otherwise established eligibility for the immigrant benefit sought. In visa petition 
16 The Petitioner adds "but the manner and means by which services are provided at the sole discretion [the Petitioner] and 
[Petitioner] employees." The record, as supplemented on motion, is insufficient to establish how the Petitioner provides 
the manner and means to control the Beneficiary's day-to-day work. The affidavit submitted refers to the manner and 
means to accomplish such tasks as the knowledge base of our managers and technical staff The Petitioner seems to rely 
on its personnel to work independently. However, this begs the question of who provides the actual work for a Beneficiary 
and whether the work is H- IB caliber work. Although the Petitioner references the intent of the parties to its contracts is 
for the Petitioner to retain control of the Beneficiary's output, the record does not include probative evidence establishing 
how this is accomplished. 
17 The record includes a number of the end-client's advertisements which show that it requires different types and levels 
of business/systems analysts with different required degrees and significant experience. 
8 
Matter of M-T-, Inc. 
proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of M-T-, Inc., ID# 1580093 (AAO Sept. 20, 2019) 
9