remanded H-1B Case: Market Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8795327 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 10, 2020 
The Petitioner, an international travel services company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "market research analyst" under the H-lB 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the evidence of record 
does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal , the 
Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director erred. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de nova. 2 
The Petitioner submits additional evidence on appeal including an updated support letter, an updated 
expert opinion letter, and the Beneficiary's work samples. The Petitioner asserts that the evidence 
submitted demonstrates that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. However , 
because the Director has not yet addressed this new evidence, and it appears material to the Petitioner's 
claim , we shall return the matter for the Director so that she may consider it. 
The Director may also wish to consider whether certain inconsistencies we have observed regarding 
the Petitioner's stated requirements for the position impact upon its overall eligibility claims . For 
example, the Petitioner initially made no mention of a requirement for proficiency in a foreign 
language. However , the Petitioner expanded the Beneficiary's duties in the RFE response by stating 
the Beneficiary will "make sure" English language information matches the Chinese language 
interpretation in "the system. " It also provided a job posting stating that a successful candidate must 
be a "[f]luent English and Mandarin speaker and writer. " The Petitioner makes similar assertions on 
appeal. For example, it submits a letter froml I who stressed the importance of 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010) . 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
"being bilingual." The Petitioner must establish that the position offered to the Beneficiary when the 
petition was filed merits classification for the benefit sought. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 
I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). The Director may wish to consider the implications of 
these inconsistencies as she considers: (1) the specialty-occupation issue in light of the Petitioner's 
new evidence; and (2) whether the labor condition application (LCA) corresponds with and supports 
the H-1 B petition, as required. 3 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision. 
3 With specific regard to the LCA, the Director may wish to consider whether the Petitioner's apparent Mandarin language 
fluency requirement was accurately reflected in its wage-level designation. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h); U.S. Dep't 
of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. lmmigration Programs 
(rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ l l _ 2009.pdf 
2