remanded
H-1B
remanded H-1B Case: Database Administration
Decision Summary
The decision was remanded for reconsideration in light of new policy guidance regarding the employer-employee relationship, which was issued after the initial denial. Although the AAO also found the description of the proposed duties insufficient to establish a specialty occupation, it deemed it appropriate for the Director to adjudicate the case anew under the updated policy.
Criteria Discussed
Employer-Employee Relationship Specialty Occupation
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services In Re: 8819060 Appeal of California Service Center Decision Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office Date : WL Y 28, 2020 The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "database administrator" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. Β§ l 10l(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 and had not established the Beneficiary would perform services in a specialty occupation. While this appeal was pending, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision in Itserve Alliance, Inc. v. Cissna, - -- F.Supp.3d ---, 2020 WL 1150186 (D.D.C. 2020). Subsequently , U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rescinded previously issued policy guidance and directed its officers to apply the existing regulatory definition at 8 C.F.R. Β§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii) to assess whether a petitioner and a beneficiary have an employer-employee relationship. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0114, Rescission of Policy Memoranda at 2 (June 17, 2020) , http://www .uscis .gov/legal-resources /policyΒ memoranda . We observe that the Petitioner and the end-client in this matter provided different iterations of the proposed duties. Additionally , both versions of the duties for the proposed position are general, jargon-laced , and insufficiently detailed to communicate the duties the Beneficiary will be expected to perform. There are technology occupations that may be performed with a general degree ( either at the bachelor or associate's level) and certifications or undefined experience in a particular program or third-party software. There are also technology occupations that may require special skills, specific certifications, advanced knowledge, or that incorporate the duties of more than one occupation. Here, the duties suggest that the individual in the position must have familiarity with several third-party technology tools , software , and platforms, however, the description is not sufficiently detailed to ascertain the nature and level of responsibility of the proposed position, including whether the duties as generally described correspond to the occupation designated on the LCA. Thus, the record including the evidence submitted on appeal, is insufficient to establish the substantive nature of the proffered position and demonstrate that performing the duties described would require the theoretical and practical application of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. Β§ 214.2(h)( 4)(ii) ( defining the term "specialty occupation). However, because this case appears to be affected by the new policy guidance, we find it appropriate to remand the matter for the Director to consider the petition 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 farther proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 2
Draft your H-1B petition with AAO precedents
MeritDraft uses real AAO decisions to generate compliant petition arguments tailored to your evidence.
Sign Up Free →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.