remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6023088 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 5, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(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 approved the petition, but later revoked the approval after 
serving a notice of her intent to revoke (NOIR) it. In the revocation, the Director concluded that the 
record did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and an additional evidence, and continues to assert its 
eligibility. Upon de nova review, the Director's decision to revoke the approval of the petition is 
withdrawn . The matter will be remanded to the Director for further consideration and action . 1 
I. REVOCATION AUTHORITY 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may revoke the approval of an H-lB petition 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii), which states the following: 
(A) Grounds for revocation. The director shall send to the petitioner a notice of 
intent to revoke the petition in relevant part if he or she finds that: 
(I) The beneficiary is no longer employed by the petitioner in the capacity 
specified in the petition; or 
(2) The statement of facts contained in the petition ... was not true and 
correct, inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresented a material fact; or 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard. Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010) . 
(3) The petitioner violated terms and conditions of the approved petition; or 
( 4) The petitioner violated requirements of section 101 (a)( 15)(H) of the Act 
or paragraph (h) of this section; or 
(5) The approval of the petition violated paragraph (h) of this section or 
involved gross error. 
(B) Notice and decision. The notice of intent to revoke shall contain a detailed 
statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time period allowed for the 
petitioner's rebuttal. The petitioner may submit evidence in rebuttal within 30 
days of receipt of the notice. The director shall consider all relevant evidence 
presented in deciding whether to revoke the petition in whole or in part .... 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i) states that: 
If the decision will be adverse to the applicant or petitioner and is based on derogatory 
information considered by the Service and of which the applicant or petitioner is 
unaware, he/she shall be advised of this fact and offered an opportunity to rebut the 
information and present information in his/her own behalf before the decision is 
rendered .... 
The Director's statements in the NOIR noting deficiencies in the record at the time of filing were 
adequate to notify the Petitioner of her intention to revoke the approval of the petition in accordance 
with the provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii). Specifically, the Director cited to the ground for 
revocation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(2) and discussed her reasons for concluding, based upon a 
review of the record and new information that was unavailable at the time of the petition approval, 
that the statement of facts contained in the petition was not true and correct; but rather was inaccurate, 
fraudulent or misrepresented material facts. Additionally, she cited to the ground for revocation at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(5), indicating her determination that the prior approval of the petition 
involved gross error. Ultimately, after reviewing the Petitioner's response to the NOIR, the Director 
concluded in her revocation notice that the Petitioner did not establish that the position qualified as a 
specialty occupation. However in the end, she did not identify or discuss the specific ground(s) for 
revocation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii) upon which she based her decision to revoke the petition in 
her revocation notice. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the Director for issuance of a new 
decision based on this petition's record of proceedings. 
We are also remanding the matter for the Director's farther review and entry of a new decision in light 
of several material issues that came to light during our de novo consideration of the record. As 
presently constituted, the record does not establish eligibility for the benefit sought. Therefore, for 
this additional reason the matter will be remanded in order for the Director to consider this new 
information and offer the Petitioner an opportunity to rebut the new information and present 
affirmative information before the issuance of a new revocation notice in this petition, if any. 2 
2 See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l 6)(i); 214.2(h)(l 1 )(iii)(B). 
2 
A. Procedural History Prior to Revocation 
The Petitioner, established in 2017, filed the H-lB petition on April 5, 2018 and indicated therein that 
it conducted business operations with a three-person staff: as follows: 
[The Petitioner] provides engineering advice and design of execution plans in the area 
of occupational health and safety; helping a wide range of industries adhere to state and 
federal regulations. The company provides an in-depth assessment of clients' current 
guidelines and protocol on safety in the workplace through a network of engineering 
consultants. 
The Petitioner designated the proffered position on the labor condition application (LCA) 3 as a 
Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code 15-1199 "Computer Occupations, All Other" 
occupation, and identified the Beneficiary's proposed work location on the petition and LCA at its 
office in I I Virginia. The Petitioner offered the Beneficiary a position as a "senior project 
leader," and provided a position description which solely encompassed verbatim quotations of all or 
part of the text included within the list of the 21 job duties from the DOL's Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) 2018 summary report for "Information Technology Project Managers." 4 The 
Petitioner also submitted the Beneficiary's resume and academic credentials, as well as evidence of 
the Petitioner's legal existence. Based on the evidence in the record at the time of filing the petition, 
the Director approved the petition on August 28, 2018. 
In October 2, 2018, the Beneficiary appeared for an H-lB visa interview at the American Embassy in 
I I Venezuela. According to information provided to United States Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) by the United States Department of State (DOS), the interviewing consular officer 
refused to issue an H-lB visa to the Beneficiary and denied his visa application because the 
Beneficiary was unable to articulate the nature of the work that will be assigned to him by the Petitioner 
during his interview, among other things. 
Specifically, the Beneficiary stated during the interview that the Petitioner is owned by his son-in-law 
and provides industrial security and health consulting services with a staff of 10 employees. He 
indicated that he had 25 years of experience as an engineer and is a manager for a technology company 
in Venezuela, but could not explain what specific software development projects that were underway 
at the petitioning firm that required his services. The Beneficiary could not articulate the concrete 
plans for his employment with the Petitioner, but rather indicated that he would need to learn more 
about the company in order to know what his precise role would be. 
The consular officer also discovered during the course of the interview that the Beneficiary could not 
speak English, which raised questions regarding whether the Beneficiary would be able to perform the 
duties described in the petition, such as "manage project execution, develop and update project plans 
3 A petitioner submits the LCA to the U.S. Department of Labor to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B 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 duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
4 The archived 2018 O*NET summary report for this occupation may be viewed at https://web.archive.org 
/web/20180712160217/https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-l l 99.09. (Last visited Mar. 4, 2020). 
3 
for information technology project, monitor and track milestones and deliverables, confer with project 
personnel, negotiate with project stakeholders and suppliers, [ and] coordinate recruitment and 
selection of project personnel," for the petitioning business in the United States without possessing a 
reasonable command of the English language. 
The consular officer refused to issue an H-lB visa to the Beneficiary, citing Section 22l(g) of the Act, 
"which prohibits the issuance of a visa to anyone who has failed to present the documents required in 
connection with the visa application, or who has failed to submit sufficient credible evidence to support 
the claimed petitionable relationship." DOS returned the petition to the Director for review, 
recommending that the petition be revoked based on the consular officer's review of the petition and 
new information obtained during the interview which USCIS did not have available at the time of 
adjudication. 
The Director issued a NOIR on January 17, 2019 in which she paraphrased portions of the DOS 
material memorializing the results of the Beneficiary's interview which we have outlined above, and 
as previously discussed, indicated based upon a review of the record and new information that had not 
been available at the time of the approval that (1) the statement of facts contained in the petition was 
not true and correct; but rather was inaccurate, fraudulent or misrepresented a material fact, and (2) 
the prior approval of the petition involved in gross error. 5 She observed that the duties initially 
provided by the Petitioner were generic in nature, and that the Petitioner had not established the 
specific duties and functions that the Beneficiary would perform during the duration of his H-1 B 
employment; provided evidence of the project which the Beneficiary is to work on; or, established that 
the Petitioning entity has specialty occupation-caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period of 
employment. 
The Director requested additional material about the Petitioner's business operations including 
organization charts, business plans, reports, and presentations that would describe the nature of the 
business and the projects underway therein, contractual agreements from the clients who utilize the 
Petitioner's services, detailed statements that would explain the specific duties that the Beneficiary 
will perform, and documentary evidence of work products created by others similarly employed by 
the Petitioner. She also requested additional evidence to establish the proffered position fulfills at 
least one of the four criteria of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
In response to the Director's NOIR, the Petitioner asserted that the duties of the proffered position are 
consistent with the duties of the "Information Technology Project Managers" occupation, SOC code 
15-1199.09, and provided additional evidence. After reviewing the Petitioner's response to the NOIR, 
the Director concluded in her revocation notice that the Petitioner did not establish that the position 
qualified as a specialty occupation. Specifically, she determined that the Petitioner had not presented 
evidence sufficient to establish that the proffered position qualifies according to the statutory and 
regulatory definitions of specialty occupation as well as satisfying at least one of the criteria in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). But, she did not specifically identify or discuss the specific ground(s) for 
revocation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii) upon which she based her determination to revoke the 
petition in her revocation notice. 
5 See the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)(l l )(iii)(A)(2) and (5). 
4 
B. Subsequent Site Visit 
On January 10, 2019, USCIS conducted a site visit to the Petitioner's office location in._l ___ ___. 
Virginia in order to verify the information within this petition pursuant to the Site Inspection & 
Evaluation ofVIBE 6 Entities (SIEVE) initiative and the Targeted Site Visit and Verification Program 
(TSVVP). USCIS determined based on the results of the site visit and subsequent investigation that 
the Petitioner's chief executive officer (CEO) misrepresented his own role in the enterprise, the 
operations of the petitioning business, and the Beneficiary's proposed position within the petition. 
To begin with, the Petitioner's CEO,.__ ______ ____. stated to an immigration officer (IO) that 
he was at the Petitioner's office location when in fact, he was not. On January 10, 2019, the IO visited 
the Petitioner's location at '-----------.-------,,VA 23230, observing that it is a 
three-story brick commercial building that houses various companies. The IO further observed that 
the first floor was occupied solely by one company, G-, and that a law firm, R- & W-, occupied the 
majority of the second floor, while a second company was located on the other side of the hallway. 
The third floor of the building was comprised of office space with various offices, some completely 
empty and others which had a desk and chairs. There were no company signs on the doors of the third 
floor offices. 
While at the location, the IO contacted the CEO at the phone number provided on the petition, which 
went to voicemail indicating the Petitioner's company name. The IO then tried the CEO's cell phone 
number, and the CEO answered the call. He confirmed that he was aware of the instant petition filed 
on the Beneficiary's behalf The IO asked the CEO the location of the Petitioner's office and the CEO 
identified the aforementioned address and indicated that its office was located on the first floor. The 
CEO indicated that he would call back an hour later as he was meeting with clients at the office location 
at the time of the call. He was apparently unaware that the IO was actually at the office location at the 
time. An hour later, the IO conducted a telephonic interview with the CEO, who indicated, among 
other things, that: 
• The Petitioner only employs just two individuals, the CEO and his wife, who each own 
50% of the company, and earn $30,000 per year. 
• The wife performs administrative duties, such as accounting and banking, for the 
Petitioner. 
• The~---------~office location has two floors, the Petitioner is located 
on the first floor, and the only other company located on the first floor is D-P-. 
• The building location is operated by D-O- and is used by many companies, and the 
CEO only uses its office space to interview customers, and mostly works from home 
6 USCTS's Validation Instrument for Business Enterprises (VIBE) system VIBE uses commercially available data to 
validate basic information about organizations petitioning to employ nonimmigrant and immigrant workers, which helps 
facilitate the USCTS adjudications process. 
5 
and at construction sites. 7 The Petitioner pays $50 in rent for the use of one room in 
the building. 
• When the CEO's his father-in-law [the Beneficiary] arrives they will get a bigger office 
for the company. 
• The Petitioner specializes in doing OSHA inspections, inspections at construction sites 
and hazard safety. 
• The Petitioner wants to do a software plan for the OSHA inspections and his father-in­
law will help with this plan, and will be a software manager for the company. 
• His father-in-law will be an asset to the company because he speaks better English than 
the CEO does. 
• The Petitioner has three clients: W-M-S-, S-B-, Inc., and S- & N-. 
The IO asked the CEO to provide documentation for the current projects that the Petitioner was 
working on, and copies of pay statements for the CEO and his wife, the other owner of the Petitioner. 
The CEO provided his own employee wage statements from S-B-, Inc., and a letter from that entity 
that stated that the Petitioner provides their company with consulting services. 8 On February 7, 2019, 
the IO conducted a telephonic interview with Mr. B-, owner of S-B-, Inc. During the course of the 
interview, Mr. B- stated that: 
• His business had been doing business with the Petitioner for approximately six months. 
• The Petitioner only employs one individual, the CEO, who does not provide consulting 
services for his company, but does work for his company, doing demo work for 
apartments, as well as plumbing and cabinetry work. Specifically, he indicated that the 
CEO works at his company three-four days a week and may work anywhere from 20-
40 hours a week. 
Considering this material, it appears that the Petitioner, through its CEO, has misrepresented the 
CEO's role within the petitioning organization, and the actual operations of the petitioning business. 9 
The USCIS site visit and follow-up investigation illustrates that contrary to evidence presented in the 
record of proceeding, the Petitioner does not have dedicated office space and instead is intermittently 
renting a room though a virtual office company. Further, the CEO provided a description of the office 
location which did not correspond with the IO's observations of the physical layout of the building, 
which raises questions about the CEO's familiarity with the Petitioner's claimed physical premises. 
7 The IO later confirmed that D-O- offers services such as virtual office facilities, mail processing, and call answering 
services to various companies at the Petitioner's office building. Notably in response to the Director's NOIR, the Petitioner 
submitted a letter rrom D-O- which indicates that the Petitioner has an agreement with D-O- "for the purpose of conducting 
business and receiving mail [ at the office location 111 I ] " The Petitioner also provide an executed copy of the 
United States Postal Service's "Application for Delivery of Mail Through Agent" for the acceptance of the Petitioner's 
mail through an agent at the office location. 
8 The Petitioner provides a copy of S-B-'s letter, oddly dated as "Virginia 2019," as exhibit 18 on appeaL indicating that 
the document is a "[!Jetter rrom client confirming business relationship with the Petitioner." 
9 The Director may consider asking the Petitioner to resolve these inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies if she requests additional evidence relevant to a new 
determination. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
6 
The CEO provided a letter from a client [S-B-, Inc.], which stated that the Petitioner provides 
consulting services to the company. However, when the owner of the company, [Mr. B-], was 
interviewed he stated that the CEO does not perform any consulting services for the Petitioner, but 
instead works for Mr. B-' s company performing tasks such as cabinetry and plumbing work. The 
CEO indicated to the IO that he wants to do a software plan for OSHA inspections and that the 
Beneficiary, his father-in-law, will help with this plan and will be employed as a software manager for 
the company. 
However, though requested by USCIS during the site visit and subsequent investigation, the CEO 
could not provide evidence sufficient to substantiate the existence of the Petitioner's ongoing projects 
that would require the Beneficiary's services in the proffered senior project leader role described in 
the petition. Based on the foregoing, and considering the documentation presented in the petition, it 
appears that the Petitioner, through its CEO, has willfully misrepresented material facts specific to this 
petition. The Director should consider this new information and offer the Petitioner an opportunity to 
rebut the new information and present affirmative information before the issuance of a new revocation 
notice in this petition, if any. 10 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
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: 
(]) 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 
10 See 8 C.F.R. §§103.2(b)(l6)(i); 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(B). 
7 
( 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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We have consistently interpreted 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, 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"). 
B. Analysis 
The Director determined in her revocation notice that the Petitioner had not presented evidence 
sufficient to establish that the proffered position qualifies according to the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of specialty occupation as well as satisfying at least one of the criteria in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). However, a crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has 
sufficiently described the duties of the proffered position such that we may discern the nature of the 
position and whether the position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of a highly specialized knowledge attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific 
discipline. 11 When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we look at the nature of 
the business offering the employment and the description of the specific duties of the position as it 
relates to the performance of those duties within the context of that particular employer's business 
operations. The Petitioner has not done so here. 12 
We conclude that the Petitioner's initial reliance on a position description for the proffered position, 
which solely encompassed verbatim quotations of the 21 job duties within O*NET's summary report 
for "Information Technology Project Managers," as a means to establish the substantive nature of the 
petition is misplaced. When discussing H-lB employment, the Petitioner's job description must be 
comprehensive enough to properly ascertain the minimum educational requirements necessary to 
perform those duties. The O*NET summary report provides general information about the 
occupation, and the report's job duty listing identifies generic job tasks that are typically performed 
by individuals working within the "Information Technology Project Managers" occupational 
category. But, the information in the report does not give context to the specific tasks that the 
Beneficiary will perform within the Petitioner's business operations. Here, the Petitioner did not 
provide sufficient detail through this position description regarding the actual work these duties will 
entail, and how these tasks merit recognition of the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
11 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. 
12 We incorporate our previous analysis and discussion of the derogatory information obtained during the Beneficiary's 
visa interview at the American Embassy and USCIS's site visit and subsequent investigation of the Petitioning entity into 
our analysis regarding whether the Petitioner has sufficiently established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. at 591-92. 
8 
Also, the Petitioner has not substantiated its initial claim that the Petitioner is engaged in consulting 
services through rendering "engineering advice and [the] design of execution plans in the area of 
occupational health and safety," in order to "help[] a wide range of industries adhere to state and 
federal regulations." For instance, the Petitioner initially asserts that it employs three individuals, and 
that the "company provides an in-depth assessment of clients' current guidelines and protocol on 
safety in the workplace through a network of engineering consultants," but provided no evidence 
regarding its actual employment of engineering consultants, the services that they provide, or the 
projects that they are assigned to. 
In comparison to the statements initially provided in support of the petition, the Petitioner provided a 
2019 business plan which included an organization chart which reflects that the Petitioner employs 
the CEO and his spouse, and included a box which listed "consultants" as "vacant" positions, along 
with other evidence in its response to the Director's NOIR. 13 The Petitioner asserts that the business 
plan "illustrates the personnel plan for the next five years," and that"[ n ]o major changes in headcount 
are planned." The business plan indicates that in year one, the Petitioner will employ the CEO, his 
spouse, and the Beneficiary as a "project leader," and that in year five it will hire two additional people. 
However, the business plan does not delineate the services that will be provided by the to-be-hired 
employees, or the projects to which they will be assigned. 
The Petitioner also asserts within its NOIR response that the Beneficiary in his "senior project leader 
role" will collectively spend 60% of his work time engaged in project and personnel management 
activities, including "[c]oordinate activities of the [t]eam's assigned to projects," "[c]oordinate and 
produce reports, minutes, actions, change notices and other information for [ w ]orkgroup meeting," 
"[a]ssign duties, responsibilities, and spans of authority to project personnel," and "[c]onfer with 
project personnel to identify and resolve problems." 14 In contrast, the Petitioner contemporaneously 
presented the aforementioned business plan which states that the Petitioner will only employ the CEO, 
his spouse, and the Beneficiary for the next four years, a period of time which will encompass the 
entire duration of the Beneficiary's proposed H-lB employment. The Petitioner has not shown who 
the Beneficiary will coordinate with, assign duties and responsibilities to, or resolve problems for, 
other than the CEO and his spouse. Here, the Petitioner's submission of inconsistent and incredible 
evidence regarding its staffing and the nature of the proposed managerial duties that the Beneficiary 
will perform does not adequately demonstrate the substantive nature of the proffered position. 15 
13 The business plan is oddly dated as j !Virginia, 2019," similar to the dating nomenclature used in the S-B-, 
Inc. client letter submitted with the appeal, which raises further questions with the overall credibility and probative value 
of the client letter. Id. It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that it is qualified for the 
benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. 
14 The updated position description also contains many job duties that are quoted verbatim in all or in part from the O*NET 
summary report for the "Information Technology Project Managers" occupational category which is not persuasively 
illustrative of the actual duties that he will perform within the context of the Petitioner's business operation. 
1s Id. 
9 
The Petitioner has also submitted inconsistent and incredible information regarding the nature of the 
projects that it asserts will require the Beneficiary's services. For instance, the Petitioner presented 
material in its response to the NOIR about the software development projects that the Beneficiary was 
involved in during his employment in Venezuela as a "project software manager" for P-L-CA- from 
November 2014 to October 2018. 16 The project material shows that P-L-CA- was involved in the 
design and development of a "crew management web application" in 201 7. The Petitioner references 
this P-L-CA- project material and indicates that it is the "Petitioner's present projects that the 
Beneficiary will be working on." The Petitioner has not discussed or documented any contractual 
arrangements with the Beneficiary's former employer, P-L-CA-, for the further development of its 
products by the Petitioner. While the Petitioner submitted pages from its website and other material 
which provides information about the company, the Petitioner has not sufficiently documented the 
specific projects or initiatives which will require the Beneficiary's services. Thus, we conclude that 
the Petitioner did not provide evidence sufficient to illustrate the scope and nature of the Beneficiary's 
role as a "senior project leader" within the context of the Petitioner's business operation. 17 
Importantly, the Petitioner's claim that it intends to expand its business operations in the future is not 
sufficient to demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. A petitioner 
must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A petition may 
not be approved at a future date after the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set 
of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm'r 1978). The H-1 B 
classification is not intended as a vehicle for employers to bring in temporary workers to meet possible 
workforce needs arising from potential business expansions or the expectation of potential new 
customers or contracts. 63 Fed. Reg. 30419, 30419 - 30420 (June 4, 1998). 
In light of the above, the Director should consider whether the Petitioner has adequately described the 
Beneficiary's job duties in determining the substantive nature of the proffered position, and sufficiently 
documented the existence of specialty occupation-caliber work for the Beneficiary within the Petitioner's 
business operation. 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 second alternate prong of criterion 2; 
( 4) the factual justification for a petitioner 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. 
16 The Petitioner presented a letter from P-L-CA- which discusses the Beneficiary's employment in the project software 
management position during that timeframe, but does not discuss its relationship with the Petitioner, if any. 
17 We must review the actual duties the Beneficiary will be expected to perfonn to asce1iain whether those duties require 
at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as required for classification as a specialty 
occupation. To accomplish that task in this matter, we review the duties in conjunction with the specific project(s) or 
initiatives to which the Beneficiary will be assigned. To allow otherwise, results in generic descriptions of duties that, 
while they may appear (in some instances) to comprise the duties of a specialty occupation, are not related to any actual 
services the Beneficiary is expected to provide. 
10 
III. CONCLUSION 
We conclude that the Director's revocation notice did not satisfy the notice and decision requirements 
in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(B). However, for all of the reasons discussed, it 
appears revocation pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(A)(2) and (5) may be appropriate in this 
petition. Further, as the Petitioner was not previously accorded the opportunity to address some of the 
deficiencies currently in the record, we will remand the record for further review of these issues. The 
Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination and any 
other issue. As such, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
11