documentary facts in this case they both we both agree that in order to qualify for an h one b visas are asked to be a qualifying job and the beneficiary mr gavan this case has to qualify for them the applicable regulations we also agree on the standards used under the regulation and on the standard revoke review of the agency action under the a p r i would like to direct the court to what i feel is process was flawed the cia and say oh admitted that there was no evidence in the record to support the initial reasons for voting the visa these are outlined in the cooney memorandum which is in the excerpts of record responded to the allegations in the letter revoking the decency believe that was all he had to refute in his response jefferson demonstrated that the job was a specialty occupation and direct the course of the excerpts created the job was offering the job and status requirements he would hardly be unusual for the kind of person needed to have to have an advanced degree i mean it's on a par with nuclear itself found that that entire procedure was improper and there was no proper evidence in the record to support their conclusions i'm just annoyed felt maybe that's exactly what they did and they were wrong instead what they should have done if they wanted more information is they could have asked for my own form i dashed one twenty nine there was a description of the job duties ok if they wanted more information the normal procedure is to return the form and ask for if they didn't there's no indication in the record or the priest that any kind of f description of her job is required from r e m then there was further information provided by mr jefferson in haste because it was clear they were saying mr op may not be enough so he got the university of toronto c letter now c i s doesn't seem to go farther than just repeating what the ale says but jefferson show that the decision is flawed the letter says and this is the university of toronto desperation you go to reason three and four reason three is well the evaluator didn't reach a firm conclusion most of the few features don't they can't it's not cut in stone all they can do is do their best to value what they've caught and the letter  that they looked at the diploma they looked at the transcript they looked at all the information in the translations of it and then the the determination i suspect that a firm conclusion by university of toronto c s would have been rejected equally strongly for speculation about the petitioners motivation about whether the preferred position actually exists it describes it as conjecture it rejects it completely it says there is an absence of detail about the qualification of the consul's office computer sufficient to put the petitioner on notice that the approval of the petition is questionable and the first i had the burden to establish that there was a proper factual basis for the petition so they're taking something which is wrong which is based on extra record  is conjecture which they are properly rejecting but they're saying that raises the bar for my client r e m in trying in trying to get a visa for mr cheney for that's wrong this isn't a question this isn't a case where i'm asking this court to come in and discounted the conclusions of the computer specialist and consular office about the extent of the beneficiaries computer knowledge however the citation of the consular office information was sufficient to put the petitioner on notice that the approval of the plays the court sarah winslow for defense after lee's it is true that the agency's final decision rejected this is suspicions that the consular officer had expressed but from the very beginning of the administrative process here which began with the notice of intent to revoke and january twenty second two thousand and three the agency told him that it did not meet the requirements of the regulations to get the visa there two basic requirements here one is that the job must be in a specialty occupation and the second one is that the beneficiary this georgieva here must be qualified for that job and from the very beginning the final agency decision here so that's what's before the court today not the consular officers and mitchell suspicions but whether the agency abused its discretion in determining  failed to meet its burden on either one of those requirements now both of these requirements are necessary in order to get the visa so even if the court finds that the agency acted arbitrarily  with respect to one of the requirements the court still must up hold the agency decision if it agrees that the agency acted reasonably with respect to at least one of the requirements and i to go briefly through the two requirement the first is that the job must be in a specialty occupation and the regulations set out for ways that an employer can show that the job is an especially occupation but essentially they all come down the same thing that the job requires a bachelor's degree in the specialty or the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in the specialty and here the agency found that r e m failed to meet this requirement because it didn't provide any meaningful description of the job dut the only description of the job duties that was before the agency was that this was a job for a computer aided design specialist to develop computer programs related to product design and development of proprietary solar electric generators and energy converters so they simply all the agency knew was this was a computer programmer job in a particular field that's not a meaningful enough description of the dut determine whether a bachelor's degree is required it might be or it might not be and what the agency found from the beginning in the notice of intent to revoke and through the additional staffs was that the evidence does not show that the job could not be performed by someone without a bachelor's degree and throughout the process failed to show otherwise it's important to note that the burden of proof was solely on r e m to show that and that enough is that that  failure to prove that one requirement is enough to uphold the agency's decision here the second requirement is that the beneficiary miss georgia is qualified to hold the job and that's where the diploma comes in and there are attempt to provide some additional evidence unlike with the first prong but the agency rejected the evidence and gave reasons for rejecting it there was the university of chicago e mail as the agency pointed  out there was no evidence establishing that that professor had the expertise to render that type of evaluation in addition he didn't offer a conclusive opinion and and said instead he said i think that will be the equivalence which will be possible to certify that's not really a conclusive opinion at all and finally the e mail didn't append or just grab the transcript that he was looking at ok let me let me  gives r e m thirty days to respond and provide more evidence and noted it does list all of the consular officers issues but it also says you didn't meet requirement one and you didn't meet requirement to you didn't show that position is is that the job was qualified as a specialty occupation because you didn't show that the job can't be performed without a bachelor's degree and you didn't show that miss georgia gave a met the requirements for performing this job so from the very beginning it listed not just the consular officer suspicions but the two issues that the agency ultimately found were determined to then r e m provided some additional information consular office hadn't sent it back in the first place we wouldn't be here would we that's correct and the basis for it sending it back was not valid everybody seems to agree on that so i guess that's the that's the argument that's being made here that i'm not sure well we don't agree that it's that the basis was not valid the agency ultimately found there wasn't enough evidence to support the council after suspicions but there's there's certainly nothing wrong with the government having suspicions that there's that that the that the visa should not be issued and then checking taking a closer look at it and determining that under the regulations indeed it should not have been issued that's the reason for the consular offices involvement the first place is to know why you know i don't know the answer to that you know i don't know the reason for the consular officer to do an interview i'm sorry i can't answer that but but there's there's there's no there's nothing in the law that says that the government can't have a suspicion for whatever reason that of these that is has been improperly issued and then take a look at it and determine whether it was properly issued here the government took a look at it and you tell me that under the regulations it was improperly issued the fact that different types of suspicions might have led to that review doesn't invalidate the review there's no authority for that what's even if the janitor asked them to take another look at it i don't think there's anything in the law that says that that they can't the again it's important that the burden of proof is on the employer to show that it's entitle to the visa so for whatever reason the government has suspensions that it was it was improvidently issued there's nothing