dismissed H-1B Case: Systems Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10188600 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEPT . 28, 2020 
The Petitioner, a full-service audio-video store and service provider, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a systems engineer, under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner submits an 
appeal brief and asserts that the Director erred in the decision. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record, for the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. In her decision, the Director thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's failure to 
meet any of the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) - (4). Upon consideration 
of the entire record, including the evidence submitted and arguments made on appeal, we adopt and 
affirm the Director 's decision with the comments below. See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 
26 l&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 l&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994)); see also 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-lB petition , including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and 
evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved 
by a trial judge or hearing officer , then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided 
the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
On appeal , the Petitioner submits a brief and no additional documentation. The Petitioner contends 
on appeal that the reliance of the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) as an authoritative source is misguided and illegitimate based on the pronouncements 
made in the Handbook and documentation obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) . The 
pertinent disclaimer provides instructions on unintended uses of the Handbook , which are: (1) using 
the Handbook as a guide for determining ( a) wages , (b) hours of work, ( c) the right of a particular 
union to represent workers, ( d) appropriate bargaining units, or form job evaluation systems; and (2) 
using the Handbook 's data to compute future loss of earnings in adjudication proceedings involving 
work injuries or accidental deaths. In light of the BLS' own endorsement of the Handbook as a reliable 
source of information on occupational categories and their entry requirements , and in light of the 
examples of unintended uses cited in the Handbook's "Important Note ," the AAO finds that, if in fact 
it is counsel's intent to so argue , the argument against the use of the Handbook in United States 
Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) adjudications is without merit. However, the AAO 
concurs with counsel to the extent that counsel may be asserting that it would be erroneous to accord 
to the Handbook the weight or directive power of statute, regulation, or any legally binding document 
or directive. 
We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the 
occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position , and we regularly review the Handbook on 
the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses . To satisfy 
the first criterion , however , the burden of proofremains 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. 
We also note that on appeal the Petitioner states that it "provided numerous schematics" that were 
prepared by the Beneficiary as evidence of his work. However , upon review of the schematics , they 
do not list the Beneficiary or the Petitioner anywhere . But instead the schematics appear to have the 
company , "Collins" listed on them. The Petitioner has not explained this discrepancy. Furthermore, 
the Petitioner contends that it provided enough information regarding the systems the Beneficiary will 
design and test , but it submits the same job description and it does not name and describe the specific 
software systems utilized by the Petitioner. It is the Petitioner's burden to submit evidence that 
sufficiently corroborates its claims. Statements made without supporting documentation are oflimited 
probative value and are insufficient to satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998). 
II. CONCLUSION 
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. The Petitioner has not met that burden here, 
and the petition will remain denied. 
2 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3