dismissed H-1B Case: Project Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8722000 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Workers (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 27, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "project consultant" under the H-IB 
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 California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that: (1) the certified labor condition application corresponded to the petition; (2) the Beneficiary 
would perform services in a specialty occupation for the duration of the requested employment period; 
and (3) an employer-employee relationship exists between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary . 
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 Upon de 
nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 . 
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: 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofCha wathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc ., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
( 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). 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the proffered position and thus has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The record does not 
establish that the job duties, as described, require the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
a highly specialized knowledge attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. 
Additionally, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is supported by a certified 
labor condition application (LCA) 3 that corresponds to the petition. 
On the LCA submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position 
under the occupational category "Logisticians" corresponding to the Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) code 13-1081 at a Level II wage. On the Form 1-129, Petition for a 
Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner identifies itself as a project management consulting services 
business with 150 employees and indicates that the Beneficiary will be deployed to work offsite. It 
states in its letter in support of the petition that it provides change management, portfolio management, 
program leadership, enterprise project delivery and enterprise project management solutions to clients 
in a number of different industries and that the Beneficiary will be assigned to work at its operations in 
NewYork. 4 
3 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA 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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. Section 212(n)(l) 
of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
4 In response to the Director's reJuest for evidence, the Petitioner clarified that the Beneficiary's work location is at its 
end-client's facility inl~---~New York. 
2 
The Petitioner in this matter provided a broad outline of the proposed duties. For example, the 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary in this position will: "[i]nteract with client teams to participate 
in the definition of project requirements, update status, assess issues and risk pertaining to projects 
and changes, and communicate effectively across the organization;" "[s]upport large fortune 500 
financial client to provide insights on the performance of their vendors using project management 
frameworks and data analysis methodologies;" "[ o ]ptimize the costs which will be incurred by the 
client for their archiving and storage solutions in the upcoming 5 years using predictive analytics and 
forecasting techniques;" "[p ]rovide monthly and quarterly reports of vendor management activities 
such as validating the compliance of the SLAs agreed upon in the vendor contract, incident tracking, 
etc., through BI tools;" and "[u]pdate and report any hardware and software changes to reduce costs. 
Improve the cost reduction analysis that will reduce the impact and increase the efficiency of the 
hardware and software development." 
The Director cited these duties as well as the few remaining duties of the proffered position in the 
decision and determined that the duties described are not tasks that fall within the "Logisticians" 
occupation designated on the certified LCA submitted in support of the petition. 5 Thus, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner had not submitted a certified LCA that supports the position described in 
the petition. We note here that the LCA serves as the critical mechanism for enforcing section 
212(n)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 182(n)(l). 6 While DOL is the agency that certifies LCA applications 
before they are submitted to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), DOL regulations 
indicate that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits branch, 
USCIS) is the department responsible for determining 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 ( emphasis added): 
For H-lB 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 for H-1 B visa classification. 
The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that an LCA actually supports 
the H-lB petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary. Although the Director concluded that the LCA 
submitted in this matter did not support the H-lB petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary, the 
5 We observe that the Depaitment of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbookrepmts generally that "[l]ogisticians analyze 
and coordinate an organization's supply chain-the system that moves a product from supplier to consumer. They manage 
the entire life cycle of a product, which includes how a product is acquired, allocated, and delivered." See Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Logisticians, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and­
financial/logisticians.htm (last visited Mar. 27, 2020). 
6 See Labor Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Nonimmigrants on H-lB Visas in Specialty 
Occupations and as Fashion Models; Labor Ce1tification 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) (indicating 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]."). 
3 
Petitioner does not refer to or address this issue on appeal. Upon review of the complete description 
of the proposed duties we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the nature of the proffered 
position and has not established that the petition is supported by an LCA that corresponds to the duties 
described within the petition. This issue alone is dis positive of the appeal and precludes approval of 
the petition. 
The record does not include sufficient evidence to analyze and assess how the described duties will 
involve analyzing and coordinating a supply chain or redesigning the movement of goods to maximize 
value and minimize cost 7 or other duties that would be considered a logistician's duties. We 
understand that the Beneficiary will be deployed to the end-client facility and will participate in the 
definition of project requirements to optimize the costs for the client's archiving and storage solutions, 
will use project management frameworks and data analysis methodologies, and will develop project 
and product objectives. However, these duties as well as assessing issues and risks, providing insights 
on the performance of vendors, using predictive analytics and forecasting techniques, and reporting 
on changes and improving cost reduction analysis are abstract and without specific context. These 
duties are so generally described that they may correspond to several different occupations. For 
example, the duties appear to incorporate the duties of a "Management Analysts" occupation (SOC 
code 13-1111), an occupation that requires a significantly higher wage ($87,506) 8 than the occupation 
designated on the LCA. The duties may also incorporate the duties of an "Operations Research 
Analysts" occupation (SOC 15-2031), also an occupation that requires a significantly higher wage 
($83,866). 9 Without sufficient detail regarding the specific duties the Beneficiary will be required to 
perform at the end-client's facility we are not able to conclude that the Petitioner submitted a certified 
LCA that corresponds to and supports the petition. 10 
Additionally, not only is the position so broadly described that it could encompass a number of 
different occupations, the general description does not establish the substantive nature of the proffered 
position's duties 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. We observe that the Petitioner when listing the duties for the proposed 
position focuses on the training and experience, particularly managerial knowledge and experience, it 
claims is required to perform the duties. Although the Petitioner also offers conclusory statements 
that the duties could not be performed without formal education or a master's degree in technology 
management, the Petitioner does not offer a probative analysis correlating the duties to this particular 
degree. That is, the tasks themselves do not reveal the substantive application of knowledge involved 
or any particular educational requirement associated with such duties and the Petitioner, who bears the 
burden of proof in this matter, does not communicate (1) the actual work the Beneficiary would 
perform on a day-to-day basis; (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks; or (3) 
7 See the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for "Logisticians" at 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-1081.00 (last visited Mar. 27, 2020). 
8 See Foreign Labor Certification Data Center Online Wage Library at 
https://flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code= 13-1111 &area~&ye~source= 1. 
9 See id. at https://flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code= 15-2031 &area=l...._______&year= l 9&source= 1. 
10 We also observe that the duties may fall within the parameters ofa business/technology occupation such as those listed 
as sub-categories of "Computer Occupations, All Other," SOC code 15-1199. We reiterate the record is not sufficiently 
detailed to ascertain the nature of this particular position. 
4 
the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level of education of highly specialized 
knowledge in a specific specialty. 
We reviewed the position evaluation re ared byl ~ Professor and Chair of Computer 
Science, University of for insight mto the particular position and the academic 
requirements to perform those duties. 11 ~--~ repeats the Petitioner's description of the proposed 
duties and cites to the 2017 Curriculum Guidelines for Baccalaureate Degree Programs in Information 
Technology, published by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). 12 I I asserts that 
academic programs in information technology and related technical fields model their curricula to impart 
skills in 14 major "knowledge areas." 13 He concludes that "[i]n my opinion, any of the duties listed for 
the position could be matched to a corresponding knowledge area, suggesting a high degree of 
competence necessary to perform them" and that "if any of the job duties require competence in a major 
knowledge area, it stands to reason that the whole of the job's responsibilities could not be performed 
satisfactorily without Bachelor-level competence in Information Technology or a related technical field." 
First, we note thatl lseems to refer to the proffered position as a computer systems analysts 
position who will be "consistently required to consult directly with project managers who may lack 
technical expertise" and that central to the proposed position "is the elicitation and translation of customer 
requirements for the proposed system." Our reading of the record suggests that it is the individual in the 
proposed position who may be performing some sort of project managerial tasks and who, according to 
the Petitioner will have technical expertise. Additionally, the record does not include elaboration on any 
particular projects that will engage the Beneficiary at the end-client facility or describe the Petitioner or 
the Beneficiary's involvement in a "proposed system." Thus, it is not clear thatl I has provided 
an evaluation that corresponds to the proposed position. 
Second.I ldoes not refer to the Handbook's information on the "Logisticians" occupation or 
attempt to distinguish the Handbook's report that associate's or bachelor's degrees, or an undefined 
amount of experience would suffice to perform a logistician' s duties, the occupation designated on the 
certified LCA and submitted in support of the petition. He also appears unaware that the Petitioner 
indicates that the position requires a master's degree. Other than referring to the "wide adoption of the 
ACM's Curriculum Guidelines," he does not discuss relevant research, studies, or authoritative 
publications he utilized as part of his review and foundation for his opinion. Rather than offering a cogent 
analysis of the duties and a comprehensible explanation of why the duties require "Bachelor-level 
competence in Information Technology or a related technical field," I Is evaluation creates 
11 Service records show thatl lused a template with little analysis to support his conclusions. Similar templates 
with the same language, organization, a similar source, and conclusory statements regarding different occupations and also 
without supporting analysis have been submitted on behalf of other petitioners. The similarity in conclusions, without 
cogent analysis, strongly suggests that the authors of the opinions were asked to confirm a preconceived notion as to the 
required degrees, not objectively assess the proffered position and opine on the minimum bachelor's degree required. 
12 Pertinent excerpts from this document are not provided for the record and our review. 
13 These guidelines used for potential curriculums are far too broad to establish that a particular position requires a body 
of highly specialized knowledge resulting from study at a bachelor's-degree level in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
in order to perform the duties of the position. Neither the Petitioner nor! !provides a comprehensible analysis of 
the relevance of such guidelines, if any, to establish the particular position proffered here is a specialty occupation. 
5 
further ambiguity in the record. Upon review of this evaluation, it does not sufficiently correspond to the 
record and has little probative value. 14 
Without a more precise description of duties, the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature 
of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary, which therefore precludes a conclusion that the 
proffered position satisfies 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 entry into 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. 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not established that more 
likely than not, the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), and further that the generally described duties require both the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the 
occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation). Moreover, we are unable to conclude that the proffered position described in the petition is 
supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition. 
Since the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation and that 
the certified LCA supports the position described in the petition, and these issues are dispositive of 
the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments 
regarding the establishment of services in a specialty occupation and its employer-employee 
relationship with the Beneficiary. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and 
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 
they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
14 Where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or 
may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
6