dismissed H-1B Case: Data Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18571027 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 13, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "data analyst" under the H-lB 
nonirnrnigrant 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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner 's 
burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 2 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
According to the filing requirements for applications and petitions found at 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ), 
... [ a ]n applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested 
benefit at the time of filing the benefit request and must continue to be eligible through 
adjudication. Each benefit request must be properly completed and filed with all initial 
evidence required by applicable regulations and other USCIS instructions . Any 
evidence submitted in connection with a benefit request is incorporated into and 
considered part of the request. 
The regulations require that before filing a Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker , a 
petitioner obtain a certified labor condition application (LCA) from the Department of Labor (DOL) 
in the occupational specialty in which the H-lB worker will be employed. 3 Additionally , a petitioner 
1 See section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
3 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B) . 
submits the LCA to the DOL 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. 4 
Section 101 ( a )(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-1 B nonirnrnigrant as a foreign national "who is 
corning temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and 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 section 214(i)(l) of the Act but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the 
proffered position must meet one of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 5 Lastly, 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l) states that an H-lB classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will perform services in a specialty occupation ... " ( emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. The services the 
Beneficiary will perform in the position determine: (1) the normal minimum educational requirement 
for entry into the particular position, which is the focus of criterion I; (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. 6 Without sufficient evidence regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform, we are unable to 
determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and 
regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation and is a position that also satisfies at least one of the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 2 l 4(i)( I) of the Act. 7 The Director may request additional evidence 
in the course of making this determination. 8 
4 See section 212(n)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 182(n)(l )(A); 20 C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a). 
5 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty 
occupation under section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). We construe 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"). 
6 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
7 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). 
8 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
2 
TI. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the 
services the Beneficiary will perform qualify as a specialty occupation under sections 
10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b ), 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and 
(iii)(A). Specifically, the record provides inconsistent and insufficient information regarding the 
proffered position, which in tum precludes us from understanding the position's substantive nature 
and determining whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 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. 
On the Form I-129, the Petitioner identifies itself as an IT staffing and consulting services business. 
On the LCA submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position 
under the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All Others" corresponding to the standard 
occupational classification (SOC) code 15-1199. More specifically, the Petitioner indicated that the 
position corresponds to a sub-category of the "Computer Occupations, All Others" category, SOC 
code 15-1199.02, "Computer Systems Engineers/Architects." 9 
In its letter in su~port of the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would be assigned to its 
client,I l(end-client), "to provide support for their,__ ____ --.-----.----.------,-,··" 
The Petitioner noted that in this capacity the Beneficiary would "leverage[ e]) data science tools (SQL, 
Python/R, SAS, Tableau), conducting analytics experiments, and working across the foll stack of 
analytics engineering (statistical reasoning, database ETL and data visualization) to answer business 
questions and drive change." The Petitioner added that the Beneficiary specifically would: 
• Contribute to and execute big data research roadmap, using a variety of analytical 
and statistical approaches to solve complex data mining problems and drive 
business decisions 
• Design, develop, and maintain automated, self-service systems/reports/dashboards 
at-scale using programming/tooling in order to make data valuable to stakeholders 
• Partner[] with product and engineering teams to define measurement approach, 
quantifying and evaluating success, and developing KPis for ongoing measurement 
and reporting 
• Support ad-hoc requests and projects by developing optimized queries and data 
visualizations using industry cutting edge technical tools. 
The issue here is that the Petitioner provides such a broad description for the proposed position that 
the duties could encompass any number of technology occupations. We understand there may be 
overlap between various technology occupations, however, the information in the record is not 
sufficiently detailed so that we may ascertain the substantive nature of the proposed position and 
9 The O*NET recently updated its occupational classifications. The "Computer Systems Engineers/Architects" occupation 
is now identified as SOC code 15-1299.08. See Summary Report for: 15-1199.02 - Computers Systems 
Engineers/ Architects, O*NET OnLine Archives (Nov. 17, 2020), https://www.onetonline.org/ Archive_ ONET­
SOC _ 201 O _Taxonomy_ 09 _ 2020/link/summary/15-1199.02/. 
3 
analyze whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition. 10 That is, 
the duties are so broadly described we cannot ascertain either the application of knowledge needed to 
perform the position, or the occupation and wage level required. 
We also reviewed the statement of work (SOW) the Petitioner submitted in support of the petition. 
The SOW reiterates the Petitioner's claim that the Petitioner will provide personnel to assist the 
end-client's business intelligence operations team and then adds that the "[t]eam is responsible for 
supporting thousands of data pipelines and tens of thousands of pipeline tasks." Although the SOW 
continues by dividing the teams' responsibilities into two categories: (1) operations - to guarantee 
operations of data pipelines 24/7, and (2) engineering - to automate the manual processes around the 
operations work in order to scale and improve efficiency and reliability, neither the Petitioner nor the 
end-client provide sufficient detail to understand the Beneficiary's role within either team. 
Additionally, the SOW appears to focus on results or outcomes, rather than the process undertaken to 
achieve such outcomes or results. The record lacks the necessary detail to understand the scope and 
nature of the Beneficiary's specific duties. 
Overall, the claimed duties in the Petitioner's description and in the SOW are too vague and general 
to determine the substantive nature of the work. We must review the actual duties the Beneficiary will 
be expected to perfonn to ascertain whether those duties require at least a baccalaureate degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, as required for classification as a specialty occupation . Here, the 
Petitioner has not provided sufficient details regarding the nature and scope of the Beneficiary's 
employment, his assignment to a particular team at the end-client, or other substantive evidence 
describing the actual work that the Beneficiary will perform. Without a meaningful job description, 
the record lacks evidence sufficiently probative and informative to demonstrate that the proffered 
position requires a specialty occupation's level of knowledge in a specific specialty. 
We also reviewed the two position evaluations the Petitioner submitted, one in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE) and one submitted on appeal. 11 These evaluations both describe 
duties that are not part of the Petitioner's initial description and do not appear in the SOW. For 
example, the evaluation submitted in response to the Director's RFE adds that the Beneficiary would: 
• Collaborate with cross-functional teams (e.g. Data Engineering, Warehouse 
Foundation, Product, Engineers) to implement optimal solutions to thematic issues 
and to ensure smooth / seamless execution. 
10 The duties described appear to relate to a number of occupations, such as systems software developer (SOC code 15-1133 
at O*NET OnLine Archives (Nov. 17, 2020), https://www.onetonline .org/Archive_ONET­
SOC_20l0_Taxonomy_09 _2020/link/summary/15-1133.00/) , computer network architect (SOC code 15-1143 at O*NET 
OnLine Archives (Nov. 17, 2020), https://www.onetonline .org/ Archive_ ONET­
SOC _ 2010 _Taxonomy_ 09 _2020/link/summary/15-1143.00/) , and computer systems analysts (SOC code 15-1121 at 
O*NET OnLine Archives (Nov. 17, 2020), https://www.onetonline .org/ Archive_ ONET­
SOC _ 20 l O _Taxonomy_ 09 _ 2020/link/summary /15-1121.00/). Notably , some of these occupations are higher paying 
occupations and thus, would require that the higher-wage occupation be designated on the certified LCA. See U.S. Dep't 
of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric . Immigration Programs 
(rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.flcdatacenter.com /pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_Revised_ l 1_2009.pdf . 
11 The Petitioner does not provide additional descriptions or explanations regarding the proposed position, either in the 
response to the Director 's RFE or on appeal. That is, the record only includes the initial brief description and the SOW. 
4 
• Identify, initiate, implement, and scale programs in process improvements, new 
operational workflows, technological innovations with minimal guidance and 
support. 
• Take part of on-call rotations to provide 24/7 support for critical tools and service. 
Not only are these tasks vague but they do not appear to correspond to the Petitioner's description. 12 
Similarly, the second position evaluation, submitted on appeal, adds that the Beneficiary will 
"[m]aintain service level agreements (SLAs) for data landing," whatever that means. The second 
evaluator also notes that the Beneficiary will use a lot of internal customer tools and frameworks, be 
part of the global data operations team, and work closely with data engineers and platform engineers. 
Neither the evaluator nor the Petitioner sufficiently explain the Beneficiary's actual duties and role 
within the claimed team. Further, the references to tasks to improve data pipelines, provide support 
for data pipelines, work with data, and build relationships with customers, solve operational issues and 
implement quality improvements to the base tools are without context and shed little light on the 
substantive nature of the proffered position. 
Although the Beneficiary may require technological knowledge to perform some of the described 
tasks, the record does not include probative evidence that this knowledge is gained through 
bachelor's-level study in a specific discipline rather than through certifications in third-party 
technology or experience in the industry. We also cannot determine from the record that the 
Beneficiary will perform the duties of the occupation designated on the LCA at the wage level 
certified. 13 There are technology occupations that may be performed with a general degree ( either at 
the bachelor or associates level) and certifications or undefined experience in a particular program or 
third party software. There are also technology occupations that may require special skills, specific 
certifications, advanced knowledge, or that incorporate the duties of more than one occupation. Here, 
the Petitioner and the end-client have not provided sufficient consistent information to establish the 
nature of the proffered position and the minimum requirements needed to perform the duties of the 
position. The Petitioner has not provided relevant corroborating evidence sufficient to support its 
testimonial claims. The record does not establish the substantive nature of the proffered position's 
duties at the end-client or demonstrate that performing such duties would require the theoretical and 
practical application of highly specialized knowledge and attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
12 It may be that the evaluators were given materials by the Petitioner that further explain the position and the Beneficiary's 
assignment to a particular team, however, such material is not part of the record and thus we have not been afforded the 
opportunity to review those materials . 
13 The LCA serves as the critical mechanism for enforcing section 212(n)(l) of the Act , 8 U.S.C. § l l82 (n)(l) . See Labor 
Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Nonimmigrants on H-1B Visas in Specialty Occupations 
and as Fashion Models ; Labor Certification Process for Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States , 65 Fed. 
Reg. 80,110, 80,110-11 (proposed Dec. 20, 2000) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 655-56) (indicat ing that the wage 
protections in the Act seek "to protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate any economic incentive or advantage in hiring 
temporary foreign workers " and that this "process of protecting U.S. workers begins with [the filing of an LCA] with 
[DOL] ."). While DOL is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to USCIS , DOL regulations 
note that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits branch , USCIS) is the department 
responsib le for determining whether the content of an LCA filed for a particular Form I-129 actually supports that 
petition . See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that "the 
petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition .... " 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
Absent more detailed and persuasive evidence regarding the nature of the proffered position's duties, 
the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary. This precludes farther analysis of whether the proffered position satisfies any criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The Petitioner has not submitted consistent, corroborative evidence 
to adequately communicate ( 1) the nature of the actual work that the Beneficiary would perform, (2) 
the complexity, uniqueness, or specialization of the tasks, and (3) the correlation between that work 
and a need for a particular level education of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
Moreover, the record does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of specialty occupation. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered 
position is a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6