remanded H-1B

remanded H-1B Case: Database Administration

πŸ“… Date unknown πŸ‘€ Company πŸ“‚ 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

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Services (USCIS) rescinded previously issued policy guidance and directed its officers to apply the 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 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

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.