remanded H-1B Case: Network Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10159120 
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 . 21, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "network analyst" under the H-lB 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish an employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary. The Director also concluded 
that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary would perform services in a specialty occupation 
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 Subsequently, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rescinded previously 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. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0114, Rescission of Policy Memoranda 
at 2 (June 17, 2020), http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
We note that, regardless of whether the Petitioner would have an employer-employee relationship with 
the Beneficiary and whether sufficient work would be available for the requested employment period, 
the record does not establish the services that the Beneficiary will ultimately provide through the 
Petitioner, vendor, vendor management company, and end-client. 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). To determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a 
specialty occupation, we review the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and 
whether such services require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge attained through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent. As recognized by the court in Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387-88 (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. 
The record includes letters from the vendor, the vendor management company, and the end-client. 
Each letter provides a brief list of duties the Beneficiary will be expected to perform. The descriptions 
include certain tasks that are verbatim. The vendor management company omits one of the duties 
found in the Petitioner's initial letter and in the vendor's letter. The end-client's letter adds several 
duties in its initial letter submitted in support of the petition. A Fieldglass work order, submitted on 
appeal, changes the title of the proposed position from network analyst to cyber security specialist -
1. The Petitioner does not explain the discrepancies and inconsistencies and whether the title change 
and addition of duties impact the nature of the proposed position and the requirements to perform the 
duties. The Petitioner's additional narrative to each of the initial bulleted point duties in its response 
to the request for evidence is vague and does not convey the Beneficiary's actual role and level of 
responsibility at the end-client. The description does not include the detail necessary to establish that 
the duties are commensurate with a need for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. The duties 
are not sufficiently developed to understand the nature of the position and whether the position at the 
end-client requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as the 
minimum for entry into the occupation. 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 is affected by the new policy guidance, we find it appropriate to remand 
the matter for the Director to consider the matter 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