remanded H-1B Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17345051 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 22, 2021 
The Petitioner, a real estate management company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"property accountant" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
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 Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the proffered 
position's duties were not consistent with the occupational classification on the labor certification 
application (LCA) and therefore, that the LCA does not correspond to and support the H-lB petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief with additional evidence and asserts that the proffered 
position is appropriately classified under the LCA's standard occupational code (SOC) 13-2011.01 
"Accountants" occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence.1 We review the questions in this matter de novo.2 Upon de nova 
review, we will remand the matter for further action. 
The Director concluded the proffered position corresponds more with SOC 43-3031 "Bookkeeping, 
Accounting, and Auditing Clerks" occupation than the LCA-determined SOC 13-2011.01 
"Accountants" occupation. Although the Director's concerns regarding the correct SOC appear 
warranted, the decision incorrectly compared the duties of the proffered position to the occupational 
duties found in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook). 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
With respect to the LCA, DOL states that the information from its Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) description should be used to determine the most appropriate O*NET occupational code 
classification. 3 The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" states the following: 
In determining the nature of the job offer, the first order is to review the requirements 
of the employer's job offer and determine the appropriate occupational classification. 
The O*NET description that corresponds to the employer's job offer shall be used to 
identify the appropriate occupational classification. 
Therefore, the Director erred by utilizing information from the Handbook instead of O*NET. We will 
consequently withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter so that she may utilize the 
appropriate source. 
We have also observed another issue that the Director may wish to explore. USCIS regulations 
affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the 
petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 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 of facts. 
See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). A petitioner may 
not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS 
requirements. See Matter of lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
On appeal, the Petitioner appears to have provided additional job duties for the proffered position. 4 
Since none of these duties appear in the record prior to the appeal, the Director may wish to consider 
whether these new duties merely clarify the duties of the proffered position, or whether they are in fact 
a material alteration of the position as originally proposed that mandates the filing of an entirely new 
petition. 
In summary, we are therefore withdrawing the Director's decision and remanding this matter for 
further processing. The Director should (1) re-evaluate the LCA analysis; (2) review the new 
information submitted on appeal; and (3) make a new determination on the merits of the H-1B petition. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3 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.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_11_2009.pdf. 
4 The Petitioner's November 17, 2020 letter includes the following duties, in part: "[p]repare and ensure financial records 
are accurate, including maintaining daily financial reports, inspecting accounts, and confirming books are consistent with 
bank accounts": "[r]educe cost, enhance revenue, and ensure that we comply with laws and regulations"; and "[w]ork with 
management to analyze assets on hand. trend analysis of payment, and opportunities for growth." 
2