remanded H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 22737802 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition forNonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 12, 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 denied the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
(petition), concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's qualifications for the 
offered position. The matter is now before us on appeal. 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. 
Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novoreview, we conclude 
that a remand is warranted in this case . 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
The statutory and regulatory framework that we must apply in our consideration of the evidence of the 
Beneficiary's qualification to serve in a specialty occupation follows below. 
Section 214(i)(l)(B) mandates that a specialty occupation requires "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." 1 Furthermore, section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an 
individual applying for classification as an H-1 B non immigrant worker must possess: 
(A) full state licensure to practice in the occupation , if such licensure is required to 
practice in the occupation, 
(B) completion of the degree described in paragraph (1 )(B) for the occupation, or 
1 We generally acknowledge thatthe core essence of this provision is the knowledge one attains in a specialty area , rather 
than a title various institutions might assign to a particular degree . 
(C)(i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, and 
(ii) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions relating to the specialty. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary's name listed on the petition was The Petitioner used the same 
name to refer to her within the filing. Part 3 .3. of the petition required the Petitioner to list all other 
names the Beneficiary has used, and they left those spaces blank. Her Republic of India passport 
reflects her given name as and her surname asl I 
The sole issue in the Director's decision relates to the education documents the Petitioner presented to 
establish the Beneficiary possessed the foreign equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. The 2001 Bachelor of Science degree froml I University contained the following 
name: I The transcripts relating to that degree and to her 2004 
post-graduate diploma also reflected a very similar name, and none of the education materials 
contained her name as presented in her passport. After issuing a request for evidence noting the 
incorrect name, the Director denied the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims the Director erred in their determination. Within the appeal brief, the 
Petitioner identifies an employment letter from I reflecting! I I I as also being a name the Beneficiary has used. And yet, an employment letter is not a 
f orm of documentation sufficient to establish a person's identity and the Director was correct in not 
accepting that as adequate evidence. Inherent with employing foreign nationals are additional burdens 
a U.S. employer must satisfy when compared to their self-imposed requirements ofU. S. workers. Part 
of that burden in the H-1 B context is to demonstrate a Beneficiary's qualifications for the offered 
position, which they did not achieve before the Director. 
Nevertheless, a review of the initial filing materials reveals portions of the Beneficiary's foreign 
passport, and page three contains the following annotation: "The holder has previously been known 
by the name of That appears to possibly link the foreign educational documents 
to this Beneficiary, and the Director should make the final determination on that matter. 
And we note that the simple submission of this evidence by the Petitioner before the Director-but 
failing to highlight it as a means to link the education documents to the Beneficiary-should not be 
viewed as adequate to satisfy their burden of proof. Although the Director theoretically could have 
located the linking information contained in the Beneficiary's passport, it was not their responsibility 
to essentially sift through this record and infer how each of the 227 pages the Petitioner submitted 
should apply to their eligibility claims. Filing parties should not submit large quantities of evidence 
without notifying the adjudicating body of the specific documentation that corroborates their claims, 
as doing so places an undue burden on the Director to search through the documentation without the 
aid of the filing party's knowledge. Cf Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Walker, 451 S.W.3d 490, 505, n.51 
(Tex. App. Nov. 14, 2014) (citing to Aguilarv. Morales, 162 S.W.3d 825,838 (Tex. App. 2005)). The 
2 
truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. MatterofChawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010)(citingMatterofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989)). 
In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's duty to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361;Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 
2013). The Petitioner's burden of proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as well as the 
ultimate burden of persuasion. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136, 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998). 
"Commensurate with that burden is responsibility for explaining the significance of proffered 
evidence. The significance of[the evidence] is for [a petitioner] to put in context and explain in a 
meaningful way." Repakav. Beers, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1219 (S.D. Cal. 20l4);1nnova Sols., Inc. 
v. Baran, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1009, 1023 (N.D. Cal. 2018);Eguchiv. Kelly, No. 3:16-CV-1286-D, 2017 
WL2902667,at*3 (N.D. Tex.July7,2017). 
If the Director finds the passport information is sufficient, they should evaluate the remaining 
eligibility requirements under the H-lB program. If not, the Director should offer an adequate 
explanation to properly inform the Petitioner of the reasoning behind their decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
3