dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 3 1 2015 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION 
RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Office 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, 
filing location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON -PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
I. PROCEDURALBACKGROUND 
On the Form I-129 visa petition, the petitioner describes itself as a 401-employee software 
development and consulting company established in In order to employ the beneficiary in 
what it designates as a "Senior Consultant II" position at a salary of $100,000 per year, 1 the 
petitioner seeks to extend her classification as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation 
pursuant to section 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 denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record did not establish that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The record of proceeding before us contains the following: (1) the Form 1-129 and supporting 
documentation; (2) the director's request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's 
response to the RFE; (4) the director's letter denying the petition; and (5) the Form I-290B, 
Notice of Appeal or Motion, and supporting documentation. 
Upon review of the entire record of proceeding, we find that the evidence of record does not 
overcome the director's basis for denying this petition.2 Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed, 
and the petition will be denied. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
To meet the petitioner's burden of proof in establishing the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation, the evidence of record must establish that the employment the petitioner is offering 
to the beneficiary meets the following statutory and regulatory requirements. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
1 The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted by the petitioner in support of the petition was 
certified for use with a job prospect within the "Software Developers, Application" occupational 
classification, SOC (O*NET/OES) Code 15-1132. 
2 
In the exercise of our administrative review in this matter, as in all matters that come within our 
purview, we follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in the controlling precedent 
decision, Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010), unless the law specifically provides that a 
different standard applies. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
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)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the 
statute as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that 
construction of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is 
preferred); see also COlT Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 
489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter of W-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 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 
201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must 
therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that must be met in accordance with, and not 
as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.P.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-lB visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature 
of the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must 
examine the ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is 
not the title of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position 
actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the 
minimum for entry into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. The Proffered Position 
In its support letter, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary's duties would include the following: 
As Senior consultant II, (the beneficiary] will in our Dynamics department 
providing technical direction and leadership in the architecture, design, 
development, and deployment of Microsoft CRM solutions for our customers. 
[The beneficiary] possesses deep and broad technical skills in .NET and related 
MS technologies/products as well as solid architecture and design skills. 
The petitioner stated that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in computer science, 
or the equivalent. 
In its RFE response letter, the petitioner stated that in the proffered position, the beneficiary "will 
be responsible for engaging with one to several clients in the architecture, design, development 
and deployment of Microsoft CRM solutions for [the petitioner's] customer base" and referenced 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
a job description submitted as a separate document. In the "Job Description" document 
submitted with the RFE response, the petitioner 
stated the following: 
Summary/Objectives: 
[The petitioner] is seeking a Senior-level consultant with 5+ years of experience 
to provide technical direction and leadership in the architecture, design, 
development, and deployment of Microsoft CRM solutions for customers. This 
person will have deep and broad technical skills in .NET and related MS 
technologies /products as well as solid architecture and design skills. 
Essential Duties, Responsibilities & Technical Skills Desired: 
• Proficient experience in Customization, Configuration, Integration, 
Installation and Development of Microsoft Dynamic 4.0, Microsoft Dynamics 
CRM 2011 and Dynamics CRM 2013 
• Proficient experience in C# 1.0/2.0/3.0/4.0 
• Proficient experience on ASP.NET 1.1/2.0/3.0/3.5 as well as ASP.NET MVC 
1.0/2.0/3.0/4.0 
• Proficient experience in WCF/Web Service Design and Development 
• Proficient experience in SQL Server 2005/2008/2012/2014 
• Proficient experience in SQL Server Reporting Services 
2005/2008/2012/2014 
• Proficient in Data Integration & Data Migration with CRM 2011 and 2013 
and another System 
• Client side scripting 
• Consuming REST API on client side using JQUERY 
o Familiarity with J avascript CRM Model 
o HTML S development 
0 css 
• Visual Studio 2010/2012/2013 
• Experience in Scribe Data Migration Tool 
• Experience in SQL Server Integration Service 2005/2008 
• Experience in Rational Rose 6.0 
for UML 
• Requirement gathering and analysis 
• Experience in Visual Source Safe 6.0/2003, AccuRav, TFS 2008/2010/2012 
• Microsoft platform skills 
• Background application development 
• Full life-cycle experience architecting large, scalable applications 
• Working knowledge of project management methodologies 
• Data Flow Diagramming 
• Database Administration 
• Unit Testing 
• Technical Specifications and Documentation 
• End User Training 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The petitioner also stated that the beneficiary could spend as much as fifty percent of her time 
traveling. 
The petitioner submitted a Labor Condition Application (LCA) in support of the instant 
H-1B petition. The LCA designation for the proffered position corresponds to the occupational 
classification of "Software Developers, Applications"- SOC (ONET/OES) Code 15-1132. The 
petitioner indicated both on the Form I-129 and in the LCA that the beneficiary will work at the 
petitioner 's location and did not provide additional work sites. 
C. Analysis 
For H-1B approval, the petitioner must demonstrate a legitimate need for an employee exists and 
to substantiate that it has H-1B caliber work for the beneficiary for the period of employment 
requested in the petition. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to demonstrate it has suffici ent 
· work to require the services of a person with at least a bachelor 's degree in a specific specialt y, 
or its equivalent , to perform duties at a level that requires the theoretical and practical application 
of at least a bachelor 's degree level of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific 
specialty for the period specified in the petition. 
In this matter, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary will be employed in-house as a "Senior 
Consultant II." However, upon review of the record of proceeding, we find that the petitioner 
did not provide sufficient , credible evidence to establish in-house employment for the 
beneficiary for the requested H-1B employment period. Specifically, the petitioner did not 
submit a job description to adequately convey the substantive work to be performed by the 
beneficiary. While the petitioner has indicated that the beneficiary will be working on in-house 
client projects, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient, credible evidence corroborating that 
assertion. 3 
In a letter, dated Febru ary 12, 2015, the petitioner's Vice President of Human 
Resources, stated that the beneficiary's "employment is required pursuant to [its] valid contracts 
between [the petitioner] and [its] clients." Mr. continued to state that the statement s 
of work are examples and that the petitioner has other projects to which it will assign the 
beneficiary when one project is completed. 
The petitioner submitted several agreements and statements of work to which the petitioner 
refers as "only illustrative of the type of projects [the beneficiary] may be assigned to." 
3 In response to the Director's RFE, the petitioner stated that because of "confidentiality agreements" with 
its clients, the petitioner was not able to provide agreements or statements of work detailing the projects. 
Both the Freedom of Information Act and the Trade Secrets Act provide for the protection of a petitioner's 
confidential business information when it is submitted to USCIS. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4), 18 U.S.C. 
§ 1905. Additionally, the petitioner may request pre-disclosure notification pursuant to Executive Order 
No. 12,600, "Predisclosure Notification Procedures for Confidential Commercial Information." Exec. 
Order No. 12,600, 1987 WL 181359 (June 23, 1987). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
(Emphasis in the original). The petitioner further states that its "business model is fluid and new 
assignments and contracts with end-clients are in constant negotiation" (emphasis in the 
original). 
We find these sample documents submitted by the petitioner insufficient to demonstrate that it 
has sufficient, non-speculate in-house employment for the beneficiary for the requested H-1B 
employment period. For example, the statement of work (SOW) between the petitioner and 
. does not include signatories and does not provide project dates. Furthermore, 
the SOW references an October 19, 2012 "General Services Agreement" between the petitioner 
and that governs the SOW, which the petitioner did not submit. 
The SOW signed by the petitioner and in November 2014 was issued 
pursuant to a September 12, 2012 agreement. Again, the petitioner did not submit the referenced 
agreement. The SOW indicates that project should take an estimate of 966 hours to complete, 
but it does not state the project's start date. 
The SOW between the petitioner and states that "[t]his 
agreement and the estimates contained herein will expire on January 14, 2015 if not fully 
executed." This SOW was not signed, and therefore apparently expired on January 14, 2015. 
A letter titled "Amendment #2" from specifies an end date of 
January 31, 2014 for the project. The petitioner filed the petition on December 11, 2014. 
Therefore, this agreement does not cover the H-1B period requested by the petitioner. 
The change order between the and the petitioner is not signed by the petitioner. 
Although the change order references an October 15, 2011 Master Service Agreement pursuant 
to which the change order was issued and governed by, the record of proceeding does not contain 
it. Furthermore, the SOW states that this agreement covers the period from January 5, 2014 to 
December 31, 2014; therefore, it does not cover the entire H-1B period requested by the 
petitioner. 
The Statement of Service (SOS) between the petitioner and and . 
_ _ and its Exhibit A both indicate that the project start and end dates are June 2, 
2014 and August 27, 2014 respectively. Therefore, this agreement does not cover the H-1B 
period requested by the petitioner, either. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits two SOWs from _ as 
examples of its current projects. We first note that neither of these statements of work is signed 
by the petitioner. Furthermore, one of the statements of work was signed by on March 
16, 2015, and the other was signed on March 13, 2015, after the filing of the petition. The 
petitioner also submitted a change of partner request form indicating that had designated 
the petitioner as its new "Microsoft Business Solutions Partner." Similarly, this document was 
signed on March 13, 3015, which is after the filing of the petition. Therefore, these documents 
do not demonstrate that the petitioner had non-speculative work for the beneficiary at the time 
the petition was filed. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitiOner "also intends that [the beneficiary] would be 
responsible to perform internal work upgrading one of its current 
properties to the latest CRM version." However, the evidence in the record of proceeding does 
not support counsel's assertion. The petitioner did not submit information regarding the specifics 
of this project, its beginning and end dates, and the beneficiary's specific role on this project. 
Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 
(BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The unsupported 
statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any 
evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1984); Matter of Ramirez­
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). 
A petition must be filed for non-speculative 
work for the beneficiary for the entire period requested 
that existed as of the time of the petition's filing.4 USCIS regulations affirmatively require a 
petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 
8 C.P.R. §103.2(b)(1). Again, a visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future 
eligibility or after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 
Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248. Here, the petitioner did not submit sufficient 
credible documentary evidence that it had specialty occupation work available for the beneficiary 
for the duration of the requested time period. 
4 The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-lB program. 
For example, a 1998 proposed rule documented this position as follows: 
Historically, the Service has not granted H-lB classification on the basis of speculative, 
or undetermined, prospective employment. The H-lB classification is not intended as a 
vehicle for an alien to engage in a job search within the United States, or for employers to 
bring in temporary foreign workers to meet possible workforce needs arising from 
potential business expansions or the expectation of potential new customers or contracts. 
To determine whether an alien is properly classifiable as an H-lB nonimmigrant under 
the statute, the Service must first examine the duties of the position to be occupied to 
ascertain whether the duties of the position require the attainment of a specific bachelor's 
degree. See section 214(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the "Act"). The 
Service must then determine whether the alien has the appropriate degree for the 
occupation. In the case of speculative employment, the Service is unable to perform 
either part of this two-prong analysis and, therefore, is unable to adjudicate properly a 
request for H-1B classification. Moreover, there is no assurance that the alien will engage 
in a specialty occupation upon arrival in this country. 
63 Fed. Reg. 30419, 30419 - 30420 (June 4, 1998). While a petitioner is certainly permitted to change its 
intent with regard to non-speculative employment, e.g., a change in duties or job location, it must 
nonetheless document such a material change in intent through an amended or new petition in accordance 
with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Furthermore, as reflected in the descriptions of the position as quoted above, the proffered 
position has been described in terms of generalized and generic functions that do not convey 
sufficient substantive information to establish the relative complexity, uniqueness and/or 
specialization of the proffered position or its duties. For example, the petitioner states that the 
beneficiary will "provid( e] technical direction and leadership in the architecture, design, 
development, and deployment of Microsoft CRM solutions for [its] customers," and perform 
"[u]nit testing," "[d]atabase [a]dministration," and "[e]nd [u]ser [t]raining." The petitioner's 
description is generalized and generic in that the petitioner does not convey the substantive 
nature of the work that the beneficiary would actually perform, any particular body of highly 
specialized knowledge that would have to be theoretically and practically applied to perform it, 
or the educational level of any such knowledge that may be necessary. The abstract, speculative 
level of information regarding the proffered position and the duties comprising it is further 
exemplified by its statement that the beneficiary "will be responsible for engaging with one to 
several clients in the architecture, design, development and deployment of Microsoft CRM 
solutions for [its] customer base." The responsibilities for the proffered position contain 
generalized functions without providing sufficient information regarding the particular work, and 
associated educational requirements, into which the duties would manifest themselves in their 
day-to-day performance. Furthermore, although the petitioner asserted that the job description 
document provided the beneficiary's essential duties, the document contained an extensive list of 
required skills and experience, but provided no detailed job duties. 
Without additional information describing the specific duties the petitioner requires the 
beneficiary to perform, as those duties relate to specific projects, users is unable to discern the 
nature of the position and whether the position indeed qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Without a meaningful job description within the context of non-speculative employment, the 
petitioner may not establish any of the alternate criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). The 
duties as described by the petitioner do not establish that the work proposed for the beneficiary 
actually exists. 
Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we find that the petitioner has not 
established (1) the actual work that the beneficiary would perform, (2) the complexity, 
uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks, and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a 
need for a particular level education of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
Consequently, these material omissions preclude a determination that the petitioner's proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation under the pertinent statutory and regulatory 
provisions. There is a lack of probative evidence substantiating the petitioner's claims with 
regard to the duties, responsibilities and requirements of the proffered position. 
The failure to establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the beneficiary 
consequently precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines: (1) the 
normal minimum educational requirement for the particular position, which is the focus of 
criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate 
for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; 
(3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
second alternate prong of criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification for a pet1t10ner 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. 
Accordingly, as the petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) , it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that USCIS approved other petitions that the petitioner had previously 
filed on behalf of other employees in similar positions. The Director's decision does not indicate 
whether the service center reviewed the prior approvals of the other nonimmigrant petitions. If 
the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same unsupported assertions 
contained in the current record, the approvals would constitute material and gross error on the 
part of the director. We are not required to approve petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter 
of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be "absurd 
to suggest that [USCIS] or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent." 
Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 
1008 (1988). 
A prior approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or relieve the petitioner 
of its burden to provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the benefit 
sought. 55 Fed. Reg. 2606, 2612 (Jan. 26, 1990). A prior approval also does not preclude USCIS 
from denying an extension of an original visa petition based on a reassessment of eligibility for 
the benefit sought. See Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 
(5th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the 
relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had 
approved the nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of the petitioner, we would not be bound to 
follow the contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS , 
2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 
(2001). 
As the record of proceeding does not establish that the petitioner has satisfied any of the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons.5 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 of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 
128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
5 As the grounds discus sed above are dispositive of the petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought in this 
matter, we will not address and will instead reserve our determination on the additional issues and 
deficiencies that we observe in the record of proceeding with regard to the approv al of the H-lB petition. 
(b)(6)