remanded H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10980665 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-1B) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 26, 2021 
The Petitioner, an Internet media company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
"associate java developer" under the H-1B 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-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 Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . The Petitioner bears the 
burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 We review the 
questions in this matter de novo. 2 Upon de novo review, we will remand the petition. 
The record contains inconsistencies that undermine the Petitioner's claims regarding the proffered 
position. Without additional information, we are unable to determine whether the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation under sections 101(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); or whether the Petitioner complied with 
requirements under section 212(n)(l) of the Act.3 We therefore are withdrawing the Director's 
decision and remanding the matter for further review of the record. Specifically, the Director should 
determine whether the record consistently demonstrates the requirements for the position and whether 
the labor condition application (LCA) corresponds to and supports this H-1B petition. 
On the LCA, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the standard occupational 
classification (SOC) code and title 15-1199, "Computer Occupations, All Other" at a Level I and 
further specified that the position would fall under the sub-code for "Computer Systems 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-lB petition , including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
Engineers/Architects" (SOC code 15.1199.02). 4 However, the Petitioner also asserts that the proffered 
position is "highly comparable" to the "Software Developers" occupation as described in the DOL's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook). Specifically, in discussing the normal educational 
requirements for entry into the position, the Petitioner states that although "the exact occupation of 
Computer Systems Engineers/Architects is not found within the [Handbook] ... the highly 
comparable occupation of Software Developers is ... [and] the broader occupation title of Software 
Developers ... encompasses the occupation of Computer Systems Engineers/ Architects" as described 
by DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET). It then concludes that, because the 
occupations are "sufficiently comparable," it is appropriate to use the educational requirements of 
"Software Developers" to establish "the minimum education requirements of Computer Systems 
Engineers/ Architects." 
The Petitioner's statement that the position is "highly comparable" with the "Software Developers" 
occupation as described in the Handbook raises questions about the appropriateness of the SOC code 
chosen and substantive nature of the position. 5 Although the duties of the proffered position include 
those of "Computer Systems Engineers/Architects (SOC code 15.ll99.02)," the duties also 
correspond to "Software Developers, Applications" (SOC code 15-ll32) as listed on O*NET at the 
time of filing. 6 Moreover, there is also notable overlap with the duties of "Web Developers" (SOC 
code 15-ll34) and "Computer Programmers (SOC code 15-1131). 7 
For example, the proffered position's duties include "[a]rchitect[ing], build[ing], and maintain[ing] 
software and features" and "[p ]erform[ing] ongoing software maintenance operations." In its 
descriptions of day-to-day aspects of these job duties, the Petitioner states the Beneficiary will be 
required to "[d]evelop applications and websites on the front-end and back-end levels," "[t]ransition 
legacy websites and applications," "[r]evise, repair, and expand existing programs to adjust their 
adaptation to new requirements," and "[ w ]rite, update, and maintain computer programs and software 
packages ... to handle specific jobs, such as tracking inventory, storing or retrieving data, and 
controlling other equipment." While these duties correspond to "Computer Systems 
Engineers/Architects" as described by O*NET, similar design, programming, and software 
maintenance duties can be found among other alternative occupations named above. 
4 A petitioner submits the LCA to U.S. Department of Labor (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. Section 2 l 2(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
5 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 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). 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 .... " 
6 See Summary Report for: 15-1199.02 - Computer Systems Engineers/Architects, O*NET OnLine Archives, 
https://www.onetonline.org/ Archive_ ONET-SOC _ 201 O _Taxonomy_ 09 _ 2020/link/summary/15-1199 .02 (last visited Jan. 
26, 2021); Summa,y Report for: 15-ll32.00 - Software Developers, Applications, O*NET OnLine Archives, 
https://www.onetonline.org/ Archive_ ONET-SOC _ 20 IO_ Taxonomy_ 09 _ 2020/link/summary/15-1132.00 (last visited Jan. 
26, 2021). 
7 Summary Report for: 15-1134.00 Web Developers, O*NET OnLine Archives, 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-l 134.00 (last visited Jan. 26, 2021); Summa1y Report for: 15-ll 31.00 -
Computer Programmers, O*NET Online Archives, https://www.onetonline.org/Archive_ONET­
SOC_20l0_Taxonomy_09 _2020/link/summary/15-1131.00 (last visited Jan. 26, 2021). 
2 
Similarly, in an effort to provide greater detail regarding the complex nature of the duties, the 
Petitioner provided tools, skills and knowledge required for the position. For example, the Petitioner 
listed tools such as HTML, CSS, MySQL, JavaScript, and skills and knowledge such as computer 
systems and software standards, software architecture development process and design principles, 
object-oriented programing, and software development lifecycle. However, per O*NET, technology 
skills and knowledge associated with occupational categories referenced above are similar, if not the 
same. 8 Without additional evidence or explanation, we are unable to determine how the required skills 
and knowledge distinguish the proffered position from other similar occupational categories. 
Given the high level of similarity to "Software Developers, Applications," the record does not 
establish why this SOC code was not selected. When an employer's job opportunity has worker 
requirements described in a combination of O*NET occupations, the employer should select the 
relevant occupational code for the highest paying occupation. 9 In other words, if the position here 
combines the O*NET duties and requirements of "Computer Systems Engineers/Architects" with 
those of "Software Developers, Applications," then the Petitioner should have provided an LCA 
corresponding to the latter occupation because its Level I wage would be nearly $30,000 higher per 
year for the same timeframe and location. 10 However, without more information, we are unable to 
determine the nature of the occupation so as to conclude whether the SOC code selected corresponds 
to the proffered position. 
Even if"Computer Systems Engineers/Architects" was found to be the most appropriate occupational 
category, which has not been adequately demonstrated, we would still need more information to 
determine if the Level I wage designated is correct. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance" issued by the DOL provides a description of the wage levels and a five-step process for 
determining the correct level. 11 In summary, a prevailing wage determination starts with an entry 
level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, special 
skills, and supervisory requirements of the petitioner's job opportunity. After the first step of 
confirming that the proffered position corresponds to the SOC code as described O*NET, the next 
four steps require comparison of the petitioner's unique requirements to the generic duties generally 
required for the occupation in O*NET. 
8 For more information, access the relevant rep01is in the archived O*NET database and look under the subheading 
"Technology Skills." 
9 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 
10 The Petitioner's certified LCA indicates the prevailing wage for a Level I "Computer Systems Engineers/Architects" 
(SOC code 15-1199.02) is $43,846 per year. Although this is higher than the Level I "Web Developers" prevailing wage 
of $42,307 per year, in the area and for the time period when the petition was filed, the prevailing wage for a Level I 
"Software Developers, Applications" (SOC code 15-1132) would be $71,531 per year. To determine the appropriate 
prevailing wage, see the appropriate location and timeframe on the Online Wage Library - FLC Wage Search Wizard, 
Foreign Labor Certification Data Center https://flcdatacenter.com/OESWizardStart.aspx. 
11 See Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. 
Nov. 2009) (DOL guidance), available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf 
(providing guidance for selecting the correct SOC code and prevailing wage). 
3 
Under step four of this process, the job duties described by O*NET are compared to the requirements 
for the proffered position. If the proffered position includes special skills and other requirements not 
listed in O*NET, then a wage level increase may be needed. Here, for example, the position includes 
web development duties that appear atypical to the duties of the SOC code chosen. 12 These web 
development duties correlate to the duties of "Web Developers." 13 On the other hand, O*NET does 
not describe web development duties for "Computer Systems Engineers/ Architects" or "Software 
Developers, Applications." 14 Relatedly, in an effort to demonstrate its hiring practices, the Petitioner 
submitted documents showing the educational qualifications of six employees it claims perform "the 
same or similar job duties" as the Beneficiary. Five of the six employees were employed as "associate 
web developers" and only one held the same title as the proffered position, "associate java developer." 
However, the record is not clear as to whether the web development duties of the proffered position 
reflect special skills that would merit a wage level increase or if they are actually common to most 
entry level positions for the SOC code chosen. 15 
In light of the Petitioner's contention that its position is a subcategory of the broader Handbook 
occupation of "Software Developers," and its position description's inclusion of duties relating to 
O*NET entries for "Software Developers, Applications," "Computer Programmers," and "Web 
Developers," we question why the Petitioner placed the position within the occupational classification 
with the lowest wage, rather than the highest, and assigned it the lowest wage within that occupation. 
The Petitioner did not provide sufficiently relevant evidence to explain its SOC code and wage level 
selection. 
12 The Petitioner indicated that the duty that will take the highest portion of the proffered position's time, involves 
developing, maintaining, and updating websites. It also notes that other duties include evaluating website performance, 
creating web services, and enhancing website features to improve SEO rankings. 
13 Summ{lly Report for: 15-1134 Web Developers, O*NET OnLine Archives, 
https://www.onetonline.org/ Archive_ ONET-SOC _ 201 O _Taxonomy_ 09 _ 2020/link/summary/15-1134.00 (last visited Jan. 
26, 2021 ). We note that if the position were shown to fall under the "Web Developers" SOC code it would raise more 
questions concerning the educational requirements for the position. Per the Handbook, "Educational requirements for web 
developers and digital designers range from a high school diploma to a bachelor's degree." See Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Web Developers and Digital Designers, 
https://v.r,vw.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/web-developers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Jan. 26, 2021 ). In 
other words, a bachelor's degree may not be required for entry into "Web Developers" occupations. Therefore, if the 
position here were shown to actually fall under the "Web Developers" category, it would affect the determination of 
whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation under the statutory definition-namely, as an occupation that 
requires the "attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum for 
entry." Relatedly, under step three of the DOL guidance, the Petitioner's requirement ofa bachelor's degree would then 
also raise the question of whether a higher wage level would be necessary because it is "greater than what is generally 
required." 
14 Summary Report for: 15-1199.02 - Computer Systems Engineers/Architects, O*NET OnLine Archives, 
https://www.onetonline.org/ Archive_ ONET-SOC _ 2010 _Taxonomy_ 09 _ 2020/link/summary/15-1199 .02 (last visited Jan. 
26, 2021); Summmy Report for: 15-1132.00 - Software Developers, Applications, O*NET OnLine Archives, 
https://www.onetonline.org/ Archive_ ONET-SOC _ 201 O _Taxonomy_ 09 _ 2020/link/summary/15-1132.00 (last visited Jan. 
26, 2021). 
15 Per the DOL guidance, "In situations where the employer's requirements are not listed in the O*NET Tasks, Work 
Activities, Knowledge, and Job Zone Examples for the selected occupation, then the requirements should be evaluated to 
determine if they represent special skills ... [ and] if it is determined that the requirements are indicators of skills that are 
beyond those of an entry level worker" then a wage level increase may be appropriate. 
4 
Considering the above, the Director should determine (1) the actual requirements for the position; (2) 
the submitted LCA corresponds to and supports the H-lB petition; and (3) the petition is otherwise 
approvable. 
As the Petitioner was not adequately provided a prior opportunity to address the above, we will remand 
the record for further review of these issues. The Director may request any additional evidence 
considered pertinent to the new determination. We express no opinion regarding the ultimate 
resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: 
5 
The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision.