remanded H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 22737586 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition forNonimmigrant Worker (H-1B) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 22 , 2022 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary under the H-1B 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 H-1B 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 California Service Center Director denied the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 
concluding that the record did not establish that the proffered position qualified as a specialty 
occupation, and the Petitioner filed a timely appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 
issued its decision ininnova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 983 F.3d428 (9th Cir. 2020) in December 2020 . The 
Director denied this petition after the Ninth Circuit issued that decision, and it is not apparent from the 
text of the denial whether they considered In nova Sols., Inc. Because the analysis the Director utilized 
in arriving at the conclusion on the specialty-occupation issue appears that it was impacted by Innova 
Sols., Inc., we find it appropriate to remand the matter for the Director to consider the question anew, 
and to adjudicate in the first instance any additional issues as may be necessary and appropriate. 
As one of those additional issues, the Director may elect to determine whether the wage level the 
Petitioner designated on the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) ETA Form 9035 & 9035E , Labor 
Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) was correct considering the position's 
responsibilities. When DOL certifies an LCA, it does not perform any meritorious review of an 
employer's claims to ensure the information is true. DO L's Office of Inspector General, 06-21-001-
03-321, Overview of Vulnerabilities and Challenges in Foreign Labor Certification Programs 11 
(2020) (describing the DOL Employment and Training Administration's role as "simply 
rubber-stamping during the application certification process"). In other words, employers do not 
receive an evaluative determination from DOL on whether the LCA's content and the specifics were 
appropriate and accurate. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may consider DOLregulations when adjudicating 
H-1B petitions. See Int'l Internship Programs v. Napolitano, 853 F. Supp. 2d 86 , 98 (D.D .C. 2012), 
aff'd sub nom. Int'llnternship Program v. Napolitano, 718 F.3d 986 (D.C. Cir. 2013); ITServe All., 
Inc. v. Dep 'tof Homeland Sec., No. 1 :20-CV-03855 (TNM), 2022 WL493081, at *10 (D.D.C. Feb. 
17, 2022) ( citing Matter ofSimeio Solutions, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 546 n.6 (AAO 2015) and 20 C.F.R 
§ 655. 705(b)); United Statesv. Narang, No. 19-4850, 2021 WL3484683, at* 1 (4th Cir. Aug. 9, 2021) 
(finding that USCIS adjudicators evaluate whether the employment proposed in an H-1 B petition will 
conform to the wage and location specifications in the LCA); Parzenn Partners, LLC v. Baran, No. 
19-CV-11515-ADB, 2020 WL 5803143, at *8-9 (D. Mass. Sept. 29, 2020) (finding that USCIS 
operates within its authority when it either considers or evaluates DO L's wage level regulation when 
determining if an LCA corresponds with and supports an H-lB petition). Also see 20 C.F.R. 
§ 655.705(b) ("DHS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with 
the petition .... "); Simeio Solutions, 26 I&N Dec. at 546 n.6. 
In a similar vein, USCIS possesses the authority to evaluate whether the proffered position's duties 
are in accordance with the occupational classification on the LCA, and if not, to determine under which 
occupational titles the responsibilities correspond. See GCCG Inc v. Holder, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1161, 
1167-68 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (in which the court agreed with USCIS that a large portion of the 
beneficiary's duties were most similar to those found within the Bookkeeping, Accounting, and 
Auditing Clerks occupation, rather than within the Accountants Standard Occupational 
Classificational (SOC) code.) Effectively, this reiterates the USCIS' ability to dete1mine whether the 
LCA corresponds with and suppmis the petition. 
Although the Petitioner classified the position under the Computer Systems Analysts SOC code, it 
appears some of the position's requirements are not listed in the Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) Tasks, Work Activities, Knowledge, and Job Zone examples for the selected occupation. In 
those situations, DOL guidance indicates the requirements should be evaluated to dete1mine if they 
represent special skills. See DOL, Emp't & TrainingAdmin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009) (DOL guidance), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC_ Guidance_Revised_11_2009.pdf. DOL 
guidance further provides "if it is determined that the requirements are indicators of skills that are 
beyond those of an entry level worker, consider whether a point should be entered on the worksheet 
in the Wage Level Column." Simply because duties or skill sets are not included under an O*NET 
SOC code doesn't automatically mean a wage level increase is warranted. Instead, the Director should 
evaluate whether the duties and skills required are generally present in two or more SOC codes. If the 
duties and skill sets are included in both SOC codes, no increase in the wage level is necessary. But 
if they are not then they may be atypical to the SOC code listed on the LCA, and may require an 
increase in the wage level. 
There are three of the offered position's responsibilities we question, and each one includes 
functionality that appears to go beyond a surface level duty that might be encompassed by an 
entry-level Computer Systems Analyst. The first falls under the position's broader responsibility of 
development of user stories through test driven development and it states: "Develop new screens using 
Jetpack Compose, Kotlin and modify existing classes in Java." While Computer Systems Analysts 
generally work with those who perform this user interface and user experience-related duty, DOL did 
not appear to craft the Computer Systems Analysts SOC code to include a core function such as 
building user interface components with Jetpack or programming in the Kotlin language. Those duties 
or skill sets appear to align with the Web and Digital Interface Designers SOC code (15-1255). The 
2 
O*NET position description for Computer Systems Analysts does not encompass such special skills 
and thus, this would appear to require a minimum of a one level increase in the wage level. 
Further, under the broader quality assurance responsibility "[m ]erge the code changes into droid 
master/release branch and monitor integration and functional pipelines," appears to align with the 
Software Quality Assurance Analysts and Testers SOC code (15-125 3). Computer Systems Analysts 
perform testing to analyze information and trends for the purpose of increasing a system's efficiency. 
The duty the Petitioner included is performing testing for the purpose of ensuring functionality or 
resolving functionality issues. That appears to exceed the skill sets of the SOC code the Petitioner 
designated on the LCA. 
Lastly, under pipeline maintenance and release activities "[f]ix pipeline[] failures or notify 
corresponding team members to update automation scripts," personally conecting issues in the 
software pipeline is seemingly too "in the weeds" for the Computer Systems Analysts SOC code and 
appears to more properly align with the Software Developers SOC code (15-1252). The Director 
should determine if each of these instances would appear to require an increase in the wage level 
specified on the LCA. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
3