remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8494411 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 22, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"staff sales consultant" under the H-1 B nonirnmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(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 provide a valid labor condition application (LCA). Specifically, the Director concluded that, 
because the Petitioner "[had] not shown that the [B]eneficiary will work at all locations shown on the 
LCA .. . , the LCA cannot be considered to be valid." 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
We conclude that a remand is warranted in this case because the Director's decision is insufficient for 
review. 
The record contains an LCA 1 identifying three work locations in I 11 I and 
_____ I California, along with a "blanket LCA log" indicating that the LCA corresponds to four 
workers with the same job title. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
explained that, although the LCA apelies to several workers, the Beneficiary's sole work location 
would be at the Petitioner's office inL I as indicated on the Form 1-129, Petition for a 
Nonirnmigrant Worker. The address of the Petitioner's I I office provided on the H-lB 
petition differs from the three addresses in the LCA; however, the Petitioner explained both in the 
initial petition filing and in response to the RFE that the two I I addresses are adjacent 
1 A petition er submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B 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 qualific ations. Section 21 2(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
buildings at one of the Petitioner's workplaces. 2 Although an LCA must include information 
regarding the "place(s) of intended employment," 20 C.F.R. § 655.730(c)(4)(v), meaning "the 
worksite or physical location where the work is actually performed by the H-1B ... nonimmigrant," 
20 C.F.R. § 655.715, the record satisfies that the adjacent building addresses sufficiently identify the 
worksite where the Beneficiary would perform the actual work. 3 The Director's concern that the 
Petitioner "[had] not shown that the [B]eneficiary will work at all locations" identified on the blanket 
LCA corresponding to four workers is misplaced, particularly in light of the explanations in the record. 
However, as presently constituted, the record does not demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies 
as a specialty occupation. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Accordingly, the matter will be 
remanded to the Director to consider the specialty-occupation issue and enter a new decision. The 
Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination and any 
other issue. As such, 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. 
2 Furthermore, publicly available resources such as Google Maps indicate that the two addresses are adjacent buildings. 
3 Accordingly, the LCA provides sufficient information to determine ·'[t]he prevailing wage for the occupation in the area 
of intended employment," as provided at 20 C.F.R. § 655.730(c)(4)(vi). We fmther note that all addresses concerned are 
within a normal commuting distance, and therefore within the same "area of intended employment." 20 C.F.R. § 655.715. 
2