remanded H-1B Case: Database Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9827413 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 14, 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 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it had non-speculative specialty occupation work for the Beneficiary 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Subsequently, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rescinded previously issued policy 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 and directed its officers to apply the existing regulatory definition at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 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/pol icy-memoranda. 
The record includes a number of contracts between the Petitioner and third-party entities. The record 
also includes information on various projects the Petitioner claims will engage the Beneficiary. The 
documents do not identify the Beneficiary or a database administrator position. The tasks referenced 
within the claimed projects do not appear to comprise the duties of a database administrator position.1 
Although the Petitioner also provides a lengthy description of the proposed position, the description 
is overly broad, jargon-laden, rote, and insufficient to illustrate the Beneficiary's actual role and level 
of responsibility for the organization. Thus, the actual duties the Beneficiary will be expected to 
perform should be reviewed to ascertain whether those duties require at least a baccalaureate degree 
1 Although a petitioner is not required by existing regulation to submit contracts or legal agreements between the petitioner 
and third parties to establish an employer-employee relationship, "the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the benefit 
sought" and "if a petitioner provides contracts or legal agreements, [an] officer is not precluded from evaluating that 
evidence in the adjudication of other eligibility criteria." USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0114, Rescission of Policy 
Memoranda at 3. 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as required for classification as a specialty occupation. The 
abstract descriptions of duties without context, while they may appear (in some instances) to comprise 
the duties of a specialty occupation, do not appear to be related to any actual services the Beneficiary 
is expected to provide. Here, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient details regarding the nature 
and scope of the Beneficiary's employment or any substantive evidence regarding the actual work that 
the Beneficiary would perform. Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence 
sufficiently probative and informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty 
occupation's level of knowledge in a specific specialty. 
Additionally, as recognized by the court in Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 87-88 (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 contracts submitted do not 
indicate that the minimum requirements for the proposed position(s) require a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Rather, reference is made to required 
knowledge of different third-party software platforms/programs. Thus, it does not appear that the 
end-clients' requirements to perform the position establish that any proposed work would fall within 
the parameters of specialty occupation work. 
The record 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)(1) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 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 further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
2