remanded H-1B Case: Data Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8419222 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 3, 2020 
The Petitioner, an automotive insurance provider, seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as a 
"data analyst" under the H-IB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations .1 The H-IB 
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 record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualified as a specialty occupation . The matter is now before us 
on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of 
the evidence . 2 We review the questions in this matter de nova. 3 
Upon de nova review, we conclude that the preponderance of the evidence satisfies the "specialty 
occupation" definition at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and also the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( 4) for a particular position whose specific duties are so specialized and complex 
that their perforn1ance requires knowledge usually associated with attainment of a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty . The Petitioner sufficiently developed the position's duties that it 
demonstrated a nexus between an established course of study leading to a specialty degree , and how 
such a curriculum is necessary to perform the proffered position's specialized and highly complex 
duties. Therefore, the record satisfies the fourth criterion of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) , and we withdraw the Director's decision. 
However , the record appears to support a determination that the prevailing wage rate designated on 
the Department of Labor (DOL) ETA Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application for 
Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) was not correctly calculated based on the Petitioner ' s position 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10 l(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b ), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(l5)(H)(i)(b ). 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofCha wathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
requirements. 4• 5 Without knowing the answer to that question, we cannot issue an ultimate eligibility 
determination because a position that satisfies the statutory and regulatory requirements of a specialty 
occupation, but is one in which the organization would not pay the appropriate wage cannot be 
approved as it violates section 212(n)(l) of the Act and the intent to protect the wages and working 
conditions of U.S. workers. We therefore are withdrawing the Director's decision and remanding the 
matter for further review of the record and issuance of a new decision. Specifically, the Director 
should first make a determination on whether the Petitioner included the correct wage rate on the LCA, 
and that it therefore corresponds to and supports this H-1B petition. 
The Petitioner indicated the Beneficiary would perform several detailed functions relating to databases 
that do not appear to be typical of the Operations Research Analysts occupational category. Although 
this occupational category performs some work with databases, the Petitioner indicated he would: 
• Create processes for data cleaning, data validation, and data accuracy to transfer data from an 
old system to their new system; 
• Prepare a plan for migrating the data to the new system and how to combine the data from 
both systems; and 
• Design a database schema to lay out how data or objects are stored in the database such as 
fields, relationship between tables, views, and procedures. 
Here, the Petitioner obtained an LCA certified under the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 
code 15-2031, relating to "Operations Research Analysts" at a Level I prevailing wage rate. While it 
appears the Petitioner selected the most appropriate SOC code, what is unclear from the present record 
is whether it properly designated the prevailing wage at a Level I wage rate. We question whether the 
specific skills required for the job are generally encompassed by the Occupational Information 
Network description for Operations Research Analysts. 6 The Director should take the necessary steps 
to make this determination considering whether the bulleted functions are atypical of Operations 
Research Analysts and instead may relate to an unrelated SOC code ( e.g., the Database Administrators 
or Database Architects SOC codes). 
Additionally, the Director should consider the experience the Petitioner requires for the proffered 
position as represented in the document titled Job Description submitted in response to the request for 
evidence. The Petitioner's letter stated this Job Description document was a copy of the "role offered 
to the beneficiary." As a result, it appears this document directly relates to the position in the petition, 
4 While Department of Labor (DOL) certifies the LCA, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determines 
whether the LCA's attestations and content corresponds with and supports the H-lB petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) 
("DHS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition .... "). See also 
Matter of Simeio Solutions, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 546 n.6 (AAO 2015). When comparing the standard occupation 
classification (SOC) code or the wage level indicated on the LCA to the claims associated with the petition, USCTS does 
not purport to supplant DOL's responsibility with respect to wage detenninations. There may be some overlap in 
considerations, but USCTS' responsibility at its stage of adjudication is to ensure that the content of the DOL-certified 
LCA "corresponds with" the content of the H-1 B petition. 
5 See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) ("DHS detennines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the 
petition, .... "). See also Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 T&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 2015). 
6 See Step 4 of the DOL, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ 
Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf. 
2 
rather than to a similar but different position with the Petitioner. The Director should consider whether 
the experiential prerequisites that the Petitioner "required/desired" would warrant an increase in the 
prevailing wage level at a higher rate than the Level I rate the Petitioner designated on the LCA under 
step two of DO L's five-step process. 
As the Petitioner was not previously accorded the 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. As such, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate 
resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3