dismissed H-1B Case: Web Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-G-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 8, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a web development and digital marketing business, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "web programmer/developer" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification. 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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record did not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the 
Director did not consider the scope of the duties and responsibilities of the position, misapplied the 
applicable regulations, and did not evaluate the evidence using the appropriate evidentiary standard. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-G-, Inc. 
(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. 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted 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 proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto_ff, 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-IB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "web 
programmer/developer." In a letter submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
provided the following job duties for the position (paraphrased and bullet points added): 
• Developing and programming advanced database-driven websites, using multiple 
content management systems (CMSs), as well as PHP and Python frameworks. 
• Custom programming to extend WordPress' capabilities and for coding sites and 
customizing WordPress themes from designer specifications or PSDs. 
• Coding custom CMS themes and extending the functionality of WordPress and other 
CMSs. 
• Programming custom plugins, applications, and adaptations to incorporate frameworks 
for eCommerce like or for social features and collaborative 
functionality (e.g., and advanced Search Engine Optimization (SEO) reporting. 
• Coding and database work that generates the data for analysis and action. 
• Custom programming of sites using PHP, Python based frameworks and MySQL for 
backend development and jQuery, HTML5 and other libraries to develop user interfaces. 
The Petitioner stated that the approximate breakdown of the above functions by percentages of time 
would be: 30 percent for coding WordPress sites, customizing WordPress themes and preparing 
custom WordPress themes; 50 percent for programming custom plugins, applications, and 
2 
Matter of M-G-, Inc. 
adaptations to integrate external functionality; and 20 percent for custom programming of sites from 
scratch. The Petitioner emphasized that the latter two categories would involve "advanced 
programming responsibilities on a day-to-day basis and to learn the new technologies and 
frameworks that emerge rapidly in the field." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) the Petitioner repeated the above listed 
duties and allocation of the proposed Beneficiary's time and emphasized that the "object oriented 
programming of Model View Controller-based frameworks and advanced programming languages is 
absolutely not entry level web development" and neither is "the advanced integration of APis from 
third party social, customer relationship and accounting software." The Petitioner reiterated that the 
proffered position "requires solid academic preparation and advanced experience" and that the 
"programming skills and underlying engineering/computer science background necessary to keep 
abreast of developing languages and frameworks set this position apart from entry-level web 
development jobs." 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a bachelor's degree in engineering, information 
technology, or a closely related field, or an equivalent combination of education and progressively 
responsible work experience. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), 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. To inform this inquiry, we recognize 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. 3 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, 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 USCIS regularly reviews 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 proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
3 
Matter of M-G-, Inc. 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Programmers" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1131.4 
The Handbook reports the academic and training requirements to execute the general responsibilities 
and duties of positions located within the "Computer Programmers" occupational category as 
follows: 
Most computer programmers have a bachelor's degree in computer science or a 
related subject; however, some employers hire workers with an associate's degree. 
Most programmers specialize in a few programming languages. 
Education 
Most computer programmers have a bachelor's degree; however, some employers 
hire workers who have an associate's degree. Most programmers get a degree in 
computer science or a related subject. Programmers who work in specific fields, such 
as healthcare or accounting, may take classes in that field to supplement their degree 
in computer programming. In addition, employers value experience, which many 
students gain through internships. 
Most programmers learn a few computer languages while in school. However, a 
computer science degree gives students the skills needed to learn new computer 
languages easily. During their classes, students receive hands-on experience writing 
code, testing programs, fixing errors, and doing many other tasks that they will 
perform on the job. 
To keep up with changing technology, computer programmers may take continuing 
education and professional development seminars to learn new programming 
languages or about upgrades to programming languages they already know. 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he 
will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_ll_2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements ofthe Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
4 
Matter of M-G-, Inc. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Computer Programmers," http://www.b1s.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/ 
computer-programmers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Aug. 3, 20 16). 
According to the Handbook, the occupation accommodates a wide spectrum of educational 
credentials, including less than a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. The Handbook states that 
some employers hire workers who have an associate's degree. Furthermore, while the Handbook's 
narrative indicates that most computer programmers obtain a degree (either a bachelor's degree or an 
associate's degree) in computer science or a related field, the Handbook does not report that at least a 
bachelor's degree in a spec(fic specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the occupation. The Handbook also reports that employers value computer programmers 
who possess experience, which can be obtained through internships. 
In this case, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls within an occupational 
category for which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that the normal minimum 
requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered here, an 
entry-level position located within the "Computer Programmer" occupational classification (as 
indicated on the LCA), would normally have such a minimum, specialty degree requirement or its 
equivalent. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "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[.]" 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
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 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-G-, Inc. 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999)(quotingHird /BlakerCorp. v. Sava, 712F. Supp.1095, 1102(S.D.N.Y.1989)). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the 
Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports an 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. 
There are no submissions from the industry 's professional association indicating that it has made a 
degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or 
affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms 
"routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
We have reviewed the job vacancy announcement s submitted by the Petitioner. This documentation , 
however, does not establish that the proffered position is as a specialt y occupation. First, the 
Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative these job advertisements 
are of the particular advertising employers ' recruiting history for the type of jobs adverti sed. 
Further, as they are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of the employers' actual hiring 
practices. 
We also note that to satisfy this criterion and establish that an advertising organization is similar, the 
Petitioner must demonstrate that it shares the same general characteristics with the advertising 
organization. Without such evidence, documentation submitted by a petitioner is generally outside 
the scope of consideration for this criterion , which encompasses only organizations that are similar 
to a petitioning organization . When determining whether a petitioner and an 
advertising 
organization share the same general characteri stics, such factors may include information regarding 
the nature or type of organization, and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as 
the level of revenue and staffing (to list just a few elements that may be considered). It is not 
sufficient to claim that an organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a 
legitimate basis for such an assertion. Here, the advertisements do not identify the size of the 
advertising organizations , either in terms of number of employees or revenue. None of the 
advertisements submitted provided sufficient information regarding the advertising organizations to 
establish that the advertising organizations are similar to the Petitioner. 
In addition, several of the submitted advertisements confirm that while a bachelor ' s degree in 
computer science is preferred, it is not required. Thus, the advertisements submitted do not indicate 
that employers recruiting and hiring PHP or developers, the type of developer the 
Petitioner claims it needs, routinely look for individuals with a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. 
The job advertisements do not establish that organizations similar to the Petitioner routinely employ 
individuals with degrees in a specific specialty, in parallel positions in the Petitioner 's industry . 
Further, it must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a bachelor ' s degree in a 
Matter of M-G-, Inc. 
specific specialty were common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations 
(which they do not), the Petitioner does not demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if any, 
can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to determining the common educational 
requirements for .entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. As the documentation does 
not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, further analysis regarding the 
specific information contained in each of the job postings is not necessary. That is, not every deficit 
of every job posting has been addressed. 
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 of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
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. 
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. Rather, it appears that certifications in particular computer frameworks and vocational 
training are sufficient to qualify to perform the duties of the position. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
Again, the LCA indicates a wage level at a Level I (entry) wage, which is the lowest of four 
assignable wage levels. Without further evidence, the record of proceedings does not indicate that 
the proffered position is complex or unique as such a position falling under this occupational 
category 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.5 For example, a Level 
5 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim 
that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
7 
Matter of M-G-, Inc. 
IV (fully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and 
diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems." 6 The evidence of record does not 
establish that this position is significantly different from other entry-level positions in the 
occupational category such that it refutes the Handbook's information that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent is not required for the proffered position. 
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 did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
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 usually review a petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. Here, the Petitioner acknowledged that it has 
not previously hired anyone to perform the proffered position; the Petitioner noted that the 
Beneficiary is the first person it has found who can perform the work it requires for its eCommerce 
site developments. A beneficiary's own qualifications, however, do not elevate the position into a 
specialty occupation. Rather, the Petitioner must establish that the proffered position requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry 
into the occupation. The Petitioner has not established that its proffered position satisfies these 
essential statutory requirements. 
While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a 
specific specialty, 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 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an entry-level 
position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty 
occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a consideration but is not a substitute for 
a detennination of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
6 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.tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf 
8 
Matter of M-G-, Inc. 
perform any occupation as long as the employer 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 387. In other 
words, if a petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and 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"). 
Here, the record of proceedings does not establish that the Petitioner normally requires a bachelor's 
or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. Accordingly, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
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. 
Relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an 
aspect of the proffered position. The Petitioner does not establish how the duties of its computer 
programmer elevate the proffered position to a specialty occupation. The Petitioner desires an 
individual who can keep abreast of developing languages and frameworks, but has not sufficiently 
explained why a bachelor's degree in engineering, computer science, or its equivalent, is required to 
continue that learning process. While the Petitioner asserts that the duties are advanced beyond an 
entry-level web developer/programmer position, it does not offer a detailed analysis establishing 
why these duties require more than technical knowledge of various frameworks and programming 
languages and continuing certification in the applicable technology. 
We also incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position, 
and the designation of the position in the LCA as a Level I position (the lowest of four assignable 
wage-levels) relative to others within the same occupational category. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and 
complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
9 
Matter of M-G-, Inc. 
IV. THE LCA DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO THE H-1B PETITION 
As the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, we need 
not fully address other issues evident in the record. That said, we wish to identify an additional issue 
to inform the Petitioner that this matter should be addressed in any future proceedings. 7 
As noted, Petitioner classified the proffered positon at a Level I, entry-level wage-rate on the LCA. 
As discussed above, a Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for entry-level positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage 
rate indicates: (1) that the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, 
if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored 
and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive specific instructions on required tasks and 
expected results. 
However, many of the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position and its constituent 
duties appear at odds with its Level I, entry-level wage-level designation. For example, in response 
to the Director's RFE the Petitioner claimed that the duties proposed for the Beneficiary are 
"absolutely not entry level web development," and explained how the responsibilities inherent to the 
position "set this position apart from entry-level" ones. In the same letter, the Petitioner stated that 
the Beneficiary's duties require "advanced experience." 
Given that the LCA submitted in support of the petition was certified for a Level I wage, it must 
therefore be concluded that either (1) the position is a low-level, entry position relative to other 
positions located within the "Computer Programmers" occupational classification and, thus, based 
on the findings of the Handbook, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the proffered position 
is not a specialty occupation; or (2) the LCA does not correspond to and support the H-1 B petition. 
In other words, even if it were determined that the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, such that it would qualify as a specialty occupation, 
the petition could still not be approved because the Petitioner has not submitted an LCA that 
corresponds to and supports the H -1 B petition. 
While DOL is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to USCIS, DOL 
regulations note that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits 
branch, USCIS) is the department responsible for determining whether the content of an LCA filed 
for a particular Form I-129 actually supports that petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b), which states, 
in pertinent part (emphasis added): 
For H-1B visas ... DHS accepts the employer's petition (DHS Form I-129) with the 
DOL-certified LCA attached. In doing so, the DHS determines whether the petition 
7 In reviewing a matter de novo, we may identify additional issues not addressed below in the Director's decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d I 025, I 043 (E. D. Cal. 200 I), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 
2003) ("The AAO may deny an application or petition on a ground not identified by the Service Center."). 
10 
Matter of M-G-, Inc. 
is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, whether the occupation 
named in the [LCA] is a specialty occupation or whether the individual is a fashion 
model of distinguished merit and ability, and whether the qualifications of the 
nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements for H -1 B visa classification. 
The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that an LCA actually supports 
the H-1 B petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary. Here, the Petitioner has not submitted a valid 
LCA that corresponds to the H -1 B petition, and the petition cannot be approved for this additional 
reason. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter o[Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-G-, Inc., ID# 17288 (AAO Aug. 8, 20 16) 
II