remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 17833378 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 31, 2021 
The Petitioner , an information technology (IT) consulting services company, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as an "Ultipro technical analyst" 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. § l 101(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 record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies 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. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369 , 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537 , 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further 
action . 
I. ANALYSIS 
A. The Substantive Nature of the Proffered Position 
The Director denied the petition finding , in part, that the substantive nature of the position was unclear 
because the duties has been described generically . As such , the Director concluded, the proffered 
position is not a specialty occupation. We have evaluated the evidence to determine if the Petitioner's 
description of the duties was too vague and lacking in detail to determine the substantive nature of the 
position. Upon evaluation, we agree with the Director that the initial set of duties provided with the 
petition was vague and lacked detail. 1 However, in response to the Director's request for additional 
1 The Petitioner 's initial duties were listed as follows: (I) Work on Ultipro HR/Payroll Implementation projects for [the 
Petitioner] ; (2) Develop Interface specification requirement documents ; (3) Responsible for developin g, test the interface 
evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a job duties chart with expanded duties and associated 
technologies used in the position as well as a percentage breakdown of the time the Beneficiary would 
devote to each of these duties. 2 The expanded duties, when considered in the context of the Petitioner's 
business, establish that the position is in fact one located within the "Software Developers, 
Applications" occupational category, as claimed. With that as a foundation, the Director should now 
conduct a first-line review and determine whether the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
If after conducting that first-line review the Director contemplates approval of the petition, she should 
also consider exploring another issue we believe warrants farther attention. 
B. The Labor Condition Application 
It is currently unclear whether the wage level designated on the labor condition application (LCA)3 
represents the correct wage level based on the applicable five-step process, which instructs the public 
on wage level selection and takes into account aspects such as any atypical duties, the level of 
responsibility of the position, level of judgement needed to perform the work, and the level of 
understanding required for a particular position. 4 
As suggested, the Petitioner obtained an LCA certified for a position located within the Standard 
Occupation Classification (SOC) code 15-1132 "Software Developers, Applications." The Petitioner 
is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the higher of 
either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment" or the actual 
wage paid by the employer to other employees with similar duties, experience and qualifications who 
are performing the same services. See Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). We 
programs as per file layouts; ( 4) Develop, deploy and test the integrations built for different leading benefit providers; 
(5) Build programs to extract data from the source systems, mapping and translating the data into Ultipro File F01mats: 
(6) Develop data validation reports/tools for comparing source Master files, Opening Balances, and the parallels data 
against Ultipro data; and (7) Responsible for creating and maintaining Cognos reports, dashboards based on requirements. 
2 According to the RFE response's duties chart, the primary duty of this position (accounting for 40% of the position's 
time) involves "develop[ing] interface programs based on approved specification documents using Ultipro SQL framework 
methodology ... responsible for development of interfaces, unit testing and deployment to the customer environment and 
work with customer/vendor to meet interface file requirements." While this exact duty is not found in the initial duties, 
the Petitioner has incorporated the sum of the initial duties into a more comprehensive and narrative based list of 5 duties. 
Thus, we find no basis to determine that the two sets of duties are inconsistent or lack sufficient details to establish that 
the position is for a software developer. 
3 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 wage level or the standard 
occupation classification (SOC) code indicated on the LCA to the claims associated with the petition, USCIS does not 
purport to supplant DOL's responsibility with respect to wage determinations. 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. Further, USCTS may consider DOL regulations when 
adjudicating H-IB petitions. See Int'/ Internship Programs v. Napolitano, 853 F. Supp. 2d 86, 98 (D.D.C. 2012), aff'd 
sub nom. Int'/ Internship Program v. Napolitano, 718 F.3d 986 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 
4 See DOL, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs 
(rev. Nov. 2009) (DOL guidance), available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ 
Revised_l 1_2009.pdf.; OFLC Frequently Asked Questions and Answers, Foreign Labor Certification (Dec. 11, 2019), 
available at https://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/faqsanswers.cfm. 
2 
question whether the Petitioner may be underpaying the Beneficiary because there is information in 
the record suggesting that a great deal of work experience may be required by the Petitioner to perform 
the duties of the position. Such a requirement would not appear to align with its Level I designation. 
The Petitioner's June 17, 2020 letter explains that because the Beneficiary has been performing the 
role ofUltipro technical analyst since September 2016, she has the "progressive and responsible work 
experience" necessary to perform the position's duties. 5 As such, it appears that in addition to a 
bachelor's degree, the position requires an unspecified number of years of "experience" as a software 
developer. It is also not clear if the experience requirement is special and atypical for software 
developers, which may also necessitate a wage level increase. 
On remand, the Director may wish to focus on the DOL's guidance regarding whether the proffered 
position contains any special skills or other experience requirements that are not typically associated 
with an entry-level software developer position. 
II. CONCLUSION 
We will remand the record for further review of the issues discussed above. The Director may request 
any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination, and 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. 
5 We note that the record does not establish where the Petitioner has been employing the Beneficiary since September 
2016. According to the Petitioner's filing, the Beneficiary has been employed by them since September 2016. If the 
Petitioner has overseas operations in India or another foreign country, that may affect the duties and level of responsibility 
of a position (such as this one). The Petitioner should be prepared to explain in this and future filings, what overseas 
employees and operations it conducts and how those operations interact with its U.S. based employees and business. For 
example, the Petitioner's Form I-129 states that it has 4 employees. However, if these 4 employees are U.S. based and 
there are overseas employees who supervise or oversea the work perf01med by the U.S. based employees (or vice versa) 
this would affect the position's level of responsibility and the judgement needed to perform the duties. 
3