remanded H-1B Case: Education Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4668476 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 26, 2020 
The Petitioner, a school, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "administrative manager" 
under the H-IB 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-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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the decision of the 
Director. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the analysis below. 
I. ANALYSIS 
The labor condition application (LCA) serves as the critical mechanism for enforcing section 212(n)(l) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(l ). See Labor Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers 
Using Nonimmigrants on H-lB Visas in Specialty Occupations and as Fashion Models ; Labor 
Certification Process for Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States, 65 Fed. Reg. 80,110, 
80, 110-11 (proposed Dec. 20, 2000) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 655-56) (indicating that the wage 
protections in the Act seek "to protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate any economic incentive or 
advantage in hiring temporary foreign workers" and that this "process of protecting U.S. workers 
begins with [the filing of an LCA] with [DOL]."). According to section 212(n)(l)(A) of the Act, an 
employer must attest that it will pay a holder of an H-1 B visa the higher of the prevailing wage in the 
"area of employment" or the amount paid to other employees with similar experience and 
qualifications who are performing the same services . See 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a); Venkatraman v. 
REI Sys., Inc. , 417 F .3d 418, 422 & n.3 ( 4th Cir. 2005); Patel v. Boghra, 369 F. App 'x 722, 723 (7th 
Cir. 2010); Michal Vojtisek-Lom & Adm 'r Wage & Hour Div. v. Clean Air Tech. Int '!, Inc., No. 07-
97, 2009 WL 2371236, at *8 (Dep't of Labor Admin . Rev. Bd. July 30, 2009). 
In this matter, the Director should first determine whether the submitted LCA supports the petition. 1 
The Petitioner listed the proffered position under the standard occupational classification (SOC) code 
43-6014 for "secretaries and administrative assistants, except legal, medical, and executive" at a Level 
II wage. 
First, the Director should determine whether the Petitioner provided the correct SOC code. According 
to the Occupational Information Network (O*NET), individuals in this occupation generally: 
Perform routine clerical and administrative functions such as drafting correspondence, 
scheduling appointments, organizing and maintaining paper and electronic files, or providing 
information to callers. 
Based upon a review of the record, however, the Beneficiary will be performing duties that appear to 
be beyond those provided by O*NET. For example, the Beneficiary will: 
• Handle public relations 
• Provide training enrichment and goal setting to support staff and faculty 
• Conduct regular evaluations of the teachers 
• Update and maintain the Petitioner's website 
• Provide mentorship and counseling 
• Tutor students one-on-one 
If the Director concludes that the Petitioner provided the correct SOC code on the LCA, she should 
then determine whether or not the Petitioner accurately reflected the required wage level. 
II. CONCLUSION 
As the Director did not address the above in her decision, we remand the record for farther review of 
these issues. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new 
determination. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for farther 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and for the entry of a new decision. 
1 While the Department of Labor (DOL) is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), DOL regulations note that the Department of Homeland Security (i.e., its 
immigration benefits branch, USCTS) is the department responsible for determining whether the content of an LCA filed 
for a particular Form T-129 actually supports that petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b), which states, in pertinent part 
( emphasis added): 
For H-IB visas ... DHS accepts the employer's petition (DHS Form T-129) with the DOL-certified LCA 
attached. In doing so, the DHS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with 
the petition, whether the occupation named in the [LCA] is a specialty occupation or whether the individual is a 
fashion model of distinguished merit and ability, and whether the qualifications of the nonimmigrant meet the 
statutory requirements for H-1 B visa classification. 
2