dismissed H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 01815328 
Certification of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 18, 2022 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(HXi)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15XH)(iXb). 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 California Service Center Director certified its denial of the Form 1-129, Petition for a 
Nonimmigrant Worker, on several eligibility requirements. On certification, the Petitioner has not 
provided any additional evidence or statements and has not challenged any of the Director's bases for 
the denial.' The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of 
the evidence. Section291 oftheAct;MatterofChawathe,25 I&NDec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). Upon 
review, we will affirm the Director's determination . 
After reviewing the entire record, we agree with the Director's conclusion on the specialty occupation 
issue, with the added comments below. SeeMatterof P. Singh, Attorney, 26 l&NDec. 623,624 (BIA 
2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 l&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994)); see also 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). 
Although the Director addressed several bases in their decision, we adopt and affirm the portion relating 
to the lack of detail in the position's duties that undermines the Petitioner's claims regarding the level of 
complexity or demands associated with the proposed duties or the specialized knowledge required to 
perform them . Section 1 0l(a)(15XH)(iXb) of the Act defines an H-lB nonirnmigrant as a foreign 
national "who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services . .. in a specialty occupation 
described in section 214(i)( 1) .... " ( emphasis added). Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1184(i)(l), 
defines the term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical 
1 We note that this matter has been pending with this office for an extended period and we regret the delay in its 
adjudication. 
application of a body of highly specializedknowledge, and 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." In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the proffered position must meet one 
of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be 
read with the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation under section 2 l 4(i)(l) of 
the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 14 7 (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"). Lastly, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l) states that an H-lB classification may be 
granted to a foreign national who "will perform services in a specialty occupation . .. " (emphasis 
added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Without 
sufficientevidenceregardingthe duties theBeneficiarywill perform, we are unable to determine whether 
the Beneficiary will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
a specialty occupation and a position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Based on this shortcoming, we agree that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the actual, 
substantive nature of the work the Beneficiary would perform. This 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 educationalrequirementforthe particular 
position, which is the focus of criterion one; (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 two; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is 
the focus of the second alternate prong of criterion two; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner 
normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion three; and (5) the 
degree of specialization and complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion four. By 
regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section214(i)(l) of the Act. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). 
Because the identified reason for the petition's denial is dis positive of this certification, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the remaining eligibility bases on certification. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. 24, 25 ( 1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of 
which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofM-F-O-, 28 I&N Dec. 408,417 n.14 
(BIA 2021) ( declining to reach alternative issues where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The petition is denied. 
2