remanded H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8792327 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 24, 2020 
The Petitioner 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 
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 Petitioner did 
not establish an employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary. The Director also concluded 
that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary would perform services in a specialty occupation 
for the requested employment period. While this appeal was pending, the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia issued a decision in ltserve Alliance, Inc. v. Cissna, 443 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.D.C. 
2020). Subsequently, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rescinded previously 
issued policy guidance. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0114, Rescission of Policy Memoranda 
at 2 (June 17, 2020), http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
We note that, regardless of whether the Petitioner would have an employer-employee relationship with 
the Beneficiary and whether sufficient work would be available, the record does not establish the 
services that the Beneficiary will ultimately provide through the Petitioner, vendor management 
company, and end-client. 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). To determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a 
specialty occupation, we review 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. As recognized by the court in Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2000), 
where the work is to be performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client 
companies' job requirements is critical. 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. Id. 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. 
Here the Petitioner and the end-client both provide the same lengthy bullet-point list of proposed duties.1 
The issue is that the description provided is overly broad and although it describes a technology 
occupation, the tasks appear to fall within a number of different 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 analyze whether the petition is supported by a labor condition application (LCA) 2 which 
corresponds with the petition. Without a more specific description we cannot ascertain either the 
application of knowledge needed to perform the position, or the occupation and wage level required. 
We also note that the end-client states generally that the "position requires attainment of a [b]achelor's 
degree in an IT related field or equivalent work." The end-client neither narrows its general 
requirement of "an IT related field" nor explains how it determines what fields are related. 
Additionally, the end-client does not set out its standards or methodologies for determining what it 
considers equivalent work. The end-client's stated requirement is insufficient to establish that the 
described duties actually require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty 
as the minimum for entry into the occupation. 
However, because this case is affected by the new policy guidance, we find it appropriate to remand 
the matter for the Director to consider the matter anew and to adjudicate in the first instance any 
additional issues as may be necessary and appropriate. Accordingly, the following order shall be 
issued. 
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. 
1 We note that several of the duties are described in the past tense, thus it is not clear if the Beneficiary will be required to 
continue to perform these tasks. 
2 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1B 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)(1) 
of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
2