remanded H-1B Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21165387 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 18, 2022 
The Petitioner, a management consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"solutions engineer" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations . See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(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 attaimnent 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 record does not 
establish that the Beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that the Director erred in the decision . 
While we conduct de nova review on appeal, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case 
because the Director 's decision is not ripe for review. Specifically, the Director is required to follow 
long-standing legal precedent and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation, and second, whether the Beneficiary is qualified for the 
position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition is filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 
19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue 
after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty 
occupation].") . 
Before remanding the position, however, we will make some initial observations regarding the 
specialty-occupation issue and the labor condition application (LCA) , as well as a general observation 
regarding the evidence submitted by the Petitioner. 
We will first discuss our observation that it is not apparent from the Director 's decision whether 
evidence submitted by the Petitioner was considered and weighed. The Director issued a request for 
additional evidence (RFE) addressing the issues of whether the position qualified as a specialty 
occupation, and (assuming the position did qualify as a specialty occupation) whether the Beneficiary 
is qualified to perform the duties of the position . In response, the Petitioner submitted! I I I evaluation of the nature of the proposed solutions engineer position. I I 
addressed the duties of the position as well as the educational requirements he deemed necessary to 
perform those duties. The Director's decision however, does not address this evidence. Instead, the 
Director identifies an "evaluation of the beneficiary's academic credentials and experience" as the 
sum of the evidence they considered prior to denying the H-1 B petition. Therefore, the Director does 
not appear to have considered! I' evaluation, and a first-line adjudication of this evidence 
1s necessary. 
Next, given that it is unclear whether a determination was made on the specialty-occupation issue, we 
will share our view that the record as currently constituted is not sufficient to make that case. In 
particular, we do not believe that the current record contains sufficient evidence to establish its 
substantive nature, which in tum precludes a determination that it is, in fact, a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner describes the position as a foll-time solution engineer. The Petitioner has provided 
different versions of the duties to be performed by its solution engineers, and each version varies 
slightly. The Petitioner asserts that the duties of the proffered position are consistent with the duties 
of "Database Administrators" corresponding to the standard occupational classification (SOC) code 
15-1141, as found in the Occupational Information Network ( O*NET). 1 The DOL' s "Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance" 2 (DOL guidance) explains that a job's SOC code is identified by 
selecting the O*NET job description "that most closely matches the employer's request" from a list 
of similar occupations. Here, when comparing the duties of the position to those of "Database 
Administrators" as found in the O*NET, we find several duties that fall outside the duties associated 
with a database administrator. 
On appeal, the Petitioner describes that the solutions engineer will "provide implementation design 
for Oracle Procurement Cloud module; design implementation stages, such as Conference Room Pilot 
1 (CRPl), CRP2, etc., deploy and configure tasks across all Procurement Cloud functional areas ( ex: 
Enterprise Contracts, Suppliers, Sourcing, etc.), design and configure Oracle Procurement Cloud 
Enterprise Structure, such as Legal Entities, Business Units, and others." However, none of the tasks 
associated with a database administrator requires configuration and design. See 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1242.00 (last visited Apr. 18, 2022). Instead, those 
tasks are aligned with the tasks of a Computer Systems Analyst as found in O*NET. See 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1211.00 (last visited Apr. 18, 2022). Furthermore, in 
its RFE response the Petitioner includes duties such as "register suppliers (internally and externally), 
create sub-inventory transfers, create inter-organization transactions, create movement requests, 
perform purchase order receipt, perform invoice matching, perform invoice validation, and perform 
invoice submission," which are duties aligned with the tasks of supply chain managers as found in the 
O*NET. See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/l l-3071.04 (last visited Apr. 18, 2022). The 
incorporation of duties not typically associated with the tasks of a database administrator in the 
O*NET leads to ambiguity regarding the substantive nature of the position, and because the Director 
did not explore this issue, we find it necessary to remand for a first-line adjudication to determine if 
1 O*NET Online updated the occupation SOC 15-1141, Database Administrators to SOC 15-1142, Database 
Administrators. For the purposes of this decision, we will refer to the occupation's code and name at the time of the 
Director's decision, SOC 15-1141, Database Administrators. See https://www.onetonline.org/find/quick?s=15-1141 (last 
visited on Apr. 18, 2022). 
2 See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009); http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ l l _ 2009.pdf. 
2 
we have sufficient information to determine the substantive nature of the position. Only after we 
determine the substantive nature of the position, and make a determination on the specialty-occupation 
issue, can we reach the issue of the Beneficiary's qualifications. 
Finally, on remand, the Director may also wish to explore whether the LCA corresponds to and 
supports the petition. The LCA serves as the critical mechanism for enforcing section 212(n)(l) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(l). 3 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. § 655.73 l(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'l, Inc., No. 07-97, 2009 WL2371236, 
at 8 (Dep't of Labor Admin. Rev. Bd. July 30, 2009). The Director may wish to clarify the position's 
minimum qualifications to determine if the wage level on the LCA corresponds to the position. 
The Petitioner designated the position at a Level I prevailing wage on the LCA. Under the DOL's 
guidance, which provides a five-step process for determining the appropriate wage level for LCAs, 4 
step four focuses on "Special Skills and Other Requirements." 5 As explained above, the Petitioner's 
description of the proffered position includes duties that relate to those of computer systems analysts 
and supply chain managers. Thus, the Director may wish to consider whether these duties encompass 
a sufficient portion of the position's time to require a wage level increase because they may fall under 
special skills, not generally associated with the duties of a database administrator, which would require 
one or two additional wage level increases on the LCA. 
In sum, the Director should evaluate whether the record, as presently constituted, demonstrates that 
the duties, as described, 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. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation). 
In conducting that analysis, the Director may wish to first ascertain whether the record is sufficient to 
establish the substantive nature of the proffered position. Until the record includes sufficient evidence 
establishing the proposed position is a specialty occupation, an analysis of the Beneficiary's 
qualifications is premature. The Director may also wish to further explore the issue of whether the 
LCA corresponds to and supports the H-lB petition. 
3 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]."). 
4 Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, supra. 
5 Step 4 provides the following instructions: "[i]n situations where the employer's requirements are not listed in the O*NET 
[Occupational Information Network] Tasks, Work Activities, Knowledge, and Job Zone Examples for the selected 
occupation, then the requirements should be evaluated to determine if they represent special skills." Tfthe skills required 
for the job are generally encompassed by the O*NET position description, no wage level point should be added to the 
prevailing wage rate. The guidance continues "[h]]owever, if it is determined that the requirements are indicators of skills 
that are beyond those of an entry level worker, consider whether a point should be entered on the worksheet in the Wage 
Level Column." 
3 
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. 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. 
4