dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

MATTER OF S-I-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 31,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an IT and healthcare consulting services finn, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "computer systems analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation 
position and that it would have a valid employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the evidence presented is sufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. 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. 
Matter of S-1-, Inc. 
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: 
(I) 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.F.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.F.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. 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
As recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. See 
Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-88. The court held that the former Immigration and 
Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the statute and regulations as requiring the 
petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the 
basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the beneficiary's services. !d. Such evidence 
must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and educational level of highly specialized 
knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform that particular work. 
B. The Proffered Position 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-IB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121
1 
· 
1 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Levell 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 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-1-, Inc. 
When it. filed the petition, the Petitioner provided the following description of the duties for the 
proffered position: 
System Design (Gross Design & Modification) 10% 
System Analysis 45% 
Write code & Develop programs 15% 
Developing I Creating New Code 10% 
Downloading historical data 5% 
Unit and System Testing and debugging 10% 
Generating management reporting and implementation and provision 5% 
of technical software support 
The Petitioner stated that the proffered position requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree or its· 
equivalent in the computer sciences or engineering sciences. 
Although the Petitioner's location is in Illinois, the Form I-129, Petition for a 
Nonimmigrant Worker, states that the Beneficiary would work at m 
Illinois. Evidence in the record shows that this is the location of 
A letter from provides the following duty description: 
[The Beneficiary] is responsible for designing, developing and modifying software 
systems. His responsibilities include creative solutions to business problems, analyze 
the business requirements, work with business to clarify requirements, develop 
technical design, propose design alternatives, develop the application, conduct 
testing, implement software and support the software. He will be responsible for 
technical documentation. He will work in conjunction with business groups and IT to 
understand and document the non-functional requirements like functionality, 
scalability, performance, security and integration. He is responsible for conducting 
unit testing and also functional and integration testing, including preparation of test 
cases/scenarios and test data. He could work on multiple projects as a project team. 
niember, or independently on small projects. 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding ofthe occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise ofjudgment; (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://tlcdatacenter.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 of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-1-, Inc. 
further stated: 
For this role it requires technical expertise and strong knowledge of database 
environments and software methodologies-Agile; Strong knowledge Java, HTML, 
XML, Java script and JQuery, SQL; Solid understanding of computer software 
applications, including strong spreadsheet presentation skills, database applications, 
data modeling; extensive experience with data transfers/sharing using flat files; DB 
links and report writing/querying tools; Strong understanding of developing backend 
applications and systems as per business departm~nts that will utilize all the income 
SQL Data and transaction as needed in a usable format. I am sure he has the required 
skills to handle the above tasks. 
did not state a minimum educational requirement. As to the period during which 
anticipates using the Beneficiary's services, that letter states, "the term of the project is ongoing in 
duration." 
The Petitioner provided the following updated job description in response to the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE) : 
The following will be [the Beneficiary's] roles and responsibilities. 
To provide leadership and coordination of project teams cons1stmg of 
management, Users, IS staff, and vendors. Performs systems analyst activities 
and makes recommendations in areas that require a high level of technical 
competency. 
To provide system architecture consulting and deliver System and Technical 
Requirement Document, Technical Design Documents, use cases, UML 
diagrams. 
· Performs as project lead and directs systems analysts. Provide technical 
training, guidance, and resource support for end users and Departmental staff. 
- Implements computer system requirements by defining and analyzing system 
problems; designing and testing standards and solutions. 
- Coordinates the efforts of staff to locate, assess, install, test, and maintain 
computer software systems. Coordinates conversions and upgrades to vendor 
systems 
- Provides application support and enhancements to existing applications. 
Defines system requirements, priorities, and viable alternatives. 
- Communicate with leadership frequently on status and development of new 
proposals. 
- Suggest process improvisations to enhance the efficiency of support team as 
well as overall business. 
- Work collaboratively with client in setting up quality standards to ensure 
delivering quality solutions. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter o.fS-1-, Inc. 
- Provide mentorship to PI team technical. 
- Work with operational and application development units to define business 
and system requirements for major system initiatives, review and report 
project status; develop documentation and deliverables. 
- Analysis of system and user needs in order to document system requirements 
(includes requirements, design, process flows, communication and other 
business modeling documentations), lead requirement development sessions 
to create system requirement documents and design documents. 
Liaison with infrastructure, application and media team. 
In another letter submitted in response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated: 
[The Beneficiary] will perform the following duties while working at the 
location: Expand or modify system to serve new purposes ·or improve work flow; 
test, maintain, and monitor computer programs and systems, including coordinating 
the installation of computer programs and systems; develop, document, and revise 
system design procedures, test procedures, and quality standards; and provide staff 
and users with assistance solving computer related problems, such as malfunctions 
and program problems. 
Review and analyze computer printouts and performance indicators to locate code 
problems, and correct errors by correcting codes; consult with management to ensure 
agreement on system principles; confer with clients regarding the nature of the 
information processing or computation needs a computer program is to address; read 
manuals, periodicals, and technical reports to learn how to develop programs that 
meet staffand user requirements; coordinate and link the computer systems within. an 
organization to increase compatibility and so information can be shared; and 
determine computer software or hardware needed to set up or alter system. 
C. 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. 
Specifically, we find the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the duties the 
Beneficiary would perform if the visa petition were approved. 
First, we note that the Petitioner has submitted numerous duty descriptions that vary throughout the 
record of proceedings, and has not specified which description corresponds to the proffered position. 
Further, the record of proceedings presents the duties in terms of abstract and generalized terms. · For 
example, we observe that the job duties provided in response to the RFE are copied verbatim from 
the O*NET summary report for the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" corresponding 
to SOC code 15-1121. See O*NET Online Details Report for "Computer Systems Analysts," 
http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1121.00 (last visited May 27, 2016). This type of 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-1-, Inc. 
description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that may be performed within an 
occupational category, but it does not adequately convey the substantive work that the Beneficiary will 
perform within the Petitioner's business operations and, thus, generally cannot be relied upon by a 
petitioner when discussing the duties attached to specific 
employment. In establishing a position as a 
specialty occupation, a petitioner must describe the specific duties and responsibilities to be performed 
by a beneficiary in the context of that petitioner's business operations, as well as demonstrate a 
legitimate need for an employee exists, and substantiate that it has H-1 B caliber work for the 
beneficiary for the period of employment requested in the petition. Simply submitting a generic job 
description that is not specific to the Beneficiary and the Petitioner's operations is insufficient to 
establish the substantive nature of the proffered position. 
As noted above, where the work is to be performed for entities other than the Petitioner, evidence of 
the client companies' job requirements is critical. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
Here, the description provided by like the other descriptions, contains an abstract description 
of duties performed by computer systems analysts in general, rather than a concrete description of 
the specific duties to be performed in the particular position proffered in the instant case. 
Specifically, the indicates that the Beneficiary's responsibilities include "creative solutions to 
business problems," "analyze the business requirements," and "work with business to clarify 
requirement." Such statements - as so generally described - do not illuminate the substantive 
application of knowledge involved or any particular educational attainment associated with such 
application. Further, they do not provide any particular details regarding the demands, level of 
responsibilities and requirements necessary for the performance of these duties. 
Moreover, we also observe numerous job duties indicating that the Beneficiary will perform managerial­
level responsibilities, which contradicts the wage level designated for the proffered position in the LCA. 
For example, the Petitioner has stated that the Beneficiary will "provide leadership"; make 
"recommendations in areas that require a high level of technical competency"; work "as a project lead"; 
provide "technical training, guidance, and resource support for ... Departmental staff'; "[p]rovide 
mentorship"; "exercise independent judgment"; "organize projects among a broad spectrum of 
personnel throughout the network, frequently under deadline pressure";· and that he would work 
"independently on small projects." The Petitioner also requires a candidate for the position to possess 
seven years of work experience. These duties and the seven-year experience requirement appear 
inconsistent with the Level I wage level designated in the LCA. In designating the proffered position 
at a Level I wage-level, the Petitioner indiCated that the proffered position is a comparatively low, 
entry-level position relative to other positions within the "Computer Systems Analysts" occupational 
category and carries expectations that the Beneficiary would perform routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that he would be closely supervised; that his work would be 
closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that he would receive specific instructions on 
required tasks and expected results. The Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a Level 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-1-, Inc. 
I, entry-level pos1t10n is inconsistent with these and other stated duties, and rarses additional 
questions regarding the substantive nature of the proffered position. 2 
In addition, the record indicates that the Beneficiary may not work exclusively at location 
for the duration of the requested employment period. For example, the record contains a services 
agreement (SA) with dated October 1, 2014. As the Petitioner did not sign this document, its 
validity is not clear. Further, the SA is accompanied by a purchase order calling for the Petitioner to 
provide the Beneficiary's services to for "1 year with possible extensions" starting on 
February 1, 2016, but the purchase order was signed by neither party. As the Petitioner did not sign 
the SA, and neither party signed the purchase order, the binding nature of either document is unclear. 
However, assuming that both documents are valid, it appears to indicate that the Beneficiary would 
work at the location at least through January 31, 2017, but it does not indicate whether 
agreed to utilize his services through September 20, 2018, which is the end of the period of 
requested employment. 
The record also contains a statement of work signed by and the Petitioner in October 2015, 
which calls for the Petitioner to provide the Beneficiary's services to for "Duration of Twelve 
months extended thereafter," with a tentative start date of January 4, 2016. Whether or for how long 
those extensions are guaranteed or even contemplated has not been demonstrated. This document 
does not, in any event, demonstrate that the Beneficiary's work for would be extended 
through any specific date beyond January 3, 2017. It does not, therefore, show that the Beneficiary 
could work at location through the end of the period of requested employment. 
Further, the purchase order is dated December 1, 2015, and the statement of work was ratified in 
October 2015, whereas t~e instant visa petition was submitted on April 7, 2015. As such, those 
documents are not evidence of any work that the Petitioner had available when it submitted the visa 
petition to which it could have assigned the Beneficiary. A visa petition may not be approved based 
on speculation of future eligibility or after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new 
set offacts. See Matter ofMichelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg'] Comm'r 1978).3 
2 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 relatively higher than other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note 
that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 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. 
3 The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-1 B program. For example, a 
1998 proposed rule documented this position as follows: 
Historically, the Service has not granted H-I B classification on the basis of speculative, or 
undetermined, prospective employment. The H-1 B classification is not intended as a vehicle for an 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-1-, Inc. 
Further still, in its August 19, 2015, letter, the Petitioner indicated that it might assign the 
Beneficiary to other work assignments or assign additional duties to him. Additionally, an 
employment offer letter from the Petitioner to the Beneficiary states, "[The Beneficiary's] services 
will be provided at [the Petitioner's] offices or Client locations." It further states, "[The Beneficiary] 
would be required to relocate anywhere within the [United States], depending upon the business 
demands of the [Petitioner] as determined by the [Petitioner] and at the [Petitioner's] sole 
discretion .... " 
The evidence provided does not indicate that the Beneficiary would work exclusively at 
Illinois location. As such, even if the Petitioner had demonstrated that the duties to be 
performed at location qualified as specialty occupation duties, there is insufficient evidence 
that 
those duties would continue throughout the entire period of requested employment. 
That the Petitioner did not establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary precludes a finding that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any 
criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), because 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 4.4 
alien to engage in a job search within the United States, or for employers to bring in temporary foreign 
workers to meet possible workforce needs arising ftom potential business expansions or the 
expectation of potential new customers or contracts. To determine whether an alien is properly 
classifiable as an H-1 8 nonimmigrant under the statute, the Service must first examine the duties of the 
position to be occupied to ascertain whether the duties of the position require the attainment of a 
specific bach.elor's degree. See section 214(i) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the "Act"). The 
Service must then determine whether the alien has the appropriate degree for the occupation. In the 
case of speculative employment, the Service is unable to perform either part of this two-prong analysis 
and, therefore, is unable to adjudicate properly a request for H-1 8 classification. Moreover, there is no 
assurance that the alien will engage in a specialty occupation upon arrival in this country. 
Petitioning Requirements for the H Nonimmigrant Classification, 63 Fed. Reg. 30,419, 30,419-20 (proposed June 4, 
1998) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214 ). While a petitioner is certainly permitted to change its intent with regard to 
non-speculative employment, e.g., a change in duties or job location, it must nonetheless document such a material 
change in intent through an amended or new petition in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i){E). 
4 Even if the proffered position were established as being that of a computer systems analyst, a review of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's (DOL's) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) does not indicate that, simply by virtue of 
its occupational classification, such a position qualifies as a specialty occupation in that the Handbook does not state a 
normal minimum requirement of a U.S. bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry 
into the occupation of programmer analyst. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook 
Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Computer Systems Analysts," http://www.bls.gov /ooh/computer-and-information-
8 
Matter ofS-1-, Inc, 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the Petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 CFR § 2142(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, Also, at a more basic level, as reflected in 
this decision's discussion of the evidentiary deficiencies, the record lacks credible evidence that 
when the Petitioner filed the petition, the Petitioner had secured work of any type for the Beneficiary 
to perform during the requested period of employment users regulations require a petitioner to 
establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the petition is filed, See 8 CFR, 
§ 103,2(b)(l), As was noted above, a visa 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,, 
supra, For this reason also, the appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied, 
IL EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE 
We will briefly address the issue of whether or not the Petitioner qualifies as an H-lB employer, 
The United States Supreme Court determined that where federal law fails to clearly define the term 
"employee," courts should conclude that the term was "intended to describe the conventional master­
servant relationship as understood by common-law agency doctrine," Nationwide Mut Ins, Co, v, 
Darden, 503 U,S, 318, 322-23 (1992) (quoting Cmty, for Creative Non-Violence v, Reid, 490 U,S, 
730 (1989)), The Supreme Court stated: 
"In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general 
common law of agency, we consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and 
means by which the product is accomplished, Among the other factors relevant to this 
inquiry are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the 
location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the 
hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of 
the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; 
the hired party's role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the 
regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the 
provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party," 
ld; see also Clackamas Gastroenterology Assocs,, PC v, Wells, 538 U,S, 440,445 (2003) (quoting 
Darden, 503 US, at 323), As the common-law test contains "no shorthand formula or magic phrase 
that can be applied to find the answer, , , , all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed 
and weighed with no one factor being decisive," Darden, 503 U,S, at 324 (quoting NLRB v, United 
Ins, Co, of Am,, 390 U,S, 254, 258 (1968)), 
technology/print/computer-systems-analysts,htm (last visited May 27, 2016), As such, absent evidence that the position 
of computer systems analyst satisfies one of the alternative criteria available under 8 C,F,R, § 2142(h)(4)(iii)(A), the 
instant petition could not be approved for this additional reason, 
9 
Matter ofS-I-, Inc. 
As such, while social security contributions, worker's compensation contributions, unemployment 
insurance contributions, federal and state income tax withholdings, and other benefits are still 
relevant factors in determining who will control the Beneficiary, other incidents of the relationship, 
e.g., who will oversee and direct the work of the Beneficiary, who will provide the instrumentalities 
and tools, where will the work be located, and who has the right or ability to affect the projects to 
which the Beneficiary is assigned, must also be assessed and weighed in order to make a 
determination as to who will be the Beneficiary's employer. Without full disclosure of all of the 
relevant factors, the Director would be unable to properly assess whether the requisite employer­
employee relationship will exist between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary. Therefore, the 
Director's decision is affirmed, and the appeal is dismissed for this additional reason. 
III. NON-CORRESPONDING LCA 
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. 5 
Specifically, the record does not currently demonstrate that the H-IB petition is supported by a 
corresponding LCA. 
A. Legal Framework 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(l) stipulates the following, "Before filing a petition 
for H-IB classification in a specialty occupation, the petitioner shall obtain a certification from the 
Department of Labor that it has filed a labor condition application in the occupational specialty in 
which the alien(s) will be employed." 
While the DOL is the agency that certifies LCAs before they are submitted to USCIS, the DOL 
regulations note that it is within the discretion of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
(i.e., its immigration benefits branch, USC IS) to determine whether the content of an LCA filed for a 
particular Form 1-129 actually supports that petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b), which states, in 
pertinent part: 
For H-IB visas ... DHS accepts the employer's petition (DHS Form 1-129) with the 
DOL certified LCA attached. In doing so, the DHS determines whether the petition 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 of H-1 B visa classification .... 
5 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 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 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 ofS-1-, Inc. 
(Emphasis added.) 
B. Analysis 
As was observed above, the LCA was certified for a computer systems analyst position. The LCA 
also states that the proffered position is a Level I wage-level position. 
As discussed above, in designating the proffered position at a Level I wage, the Petitioner has 
indicated that the proffered position is a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others 
within the occupation. That is, in accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information on 
wage levels, this wage rate indicates that the Beneficiary is only required to have a basic 
understanding of the occupation and carries expectations that the Beneficiary perform routine tasks 
that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that he would be closely supervised; that his work 
wou14 be closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that he would receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results. As noted above, according to DOL guidance, a 
statement that the job offer is for a research fellow, worker in training or an internship is indicative 
that a Level I wage should be considered. 
However, the September II, 2015, job description provided states the following about the proffered 
position: 
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS 
Minimum of Seven years experience in systems analysis and/or programmmg 
required with project management or leadership responsibilities. 
Must have ability to exercise independent judgment in design, planning, organizing, 
and performing systems analyst tasks. Some independent judgment required in 
setting priorities of tasks among multiple assigned projects. 
Must have ability to communicate, motivate, and organize projects among a broad 
spectrum of personnel throughout the network, frequently under deadline pressure. 
Strong knowledge. of infrastructure (platform, network, storage, databases, 
applications and business). 
Knowledge of information systems, including some familiarity with 
financial/business applications, managed applications, support on-line, interactive 
applications, and plan and perform medium- to large-scale computer projects. 
Again, aLevel I position is one for a beginning-level employee who will perform tasks requiring 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The proffered position, however, requires a minimum of seven 
years of experience, and the Petitioner has stated that the Beneficiary will "provide leadership"; make 
"recommendations in areas that require a high level of technical competency"; work "as a project lead"; 
I I 
Matter ofS-1-, Inc. 
provide "technical training, guidance, and resource support for ... Departmental staff"; "[p]rovide 
mentorship"; "exercise independent judgment"; "organize projects among a broad spectrum of 
personnel throughout the network, frequently under deadline pressure"; and that he would work 
"independently on small projects." 
The duties of a Level I position are performed under close supervision pursuant to detailed 
instructions. According to the description provided, however, the proffered position involves project 
management or leadership responsibilities and design, planning, and organizing projects; and 
motivating a wide range of personnel, which strongly suggests that the Beneficiary would exercise a 
significant degree of independent judgment and would not be closely supervised. 
The evidence in the record suggests that the proffered position is not a wage Level I position. We 
find that the Petitioner has not demonstrated, therefore, that the LCA submitted corresponds to the 
visa petition. The visa petition must be denied for this additional reason. 
IV. 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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of S-1-, Inc., ID# 16929 (AAO May 31, 20 16) 
12