remanded H-1B Case: Software Development

MATTER OF d,._ _ __, 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 20, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in the ________________ and components, 
seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 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. 
§ 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 Vennont Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the proffered position 
does not qualify as a specialty occupation . On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred and 
the evidence supports an approval of the petition. 
Upon de novo review, the decision of the Director is withdrawn . The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the opinion below and for the entry of a new decision. 
I. ANALYSIS 
As noted, the Director concluded that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. However, 
we find that conclusion premature, as the record of proceedings is not currently sufficient to establish 
that the certified labor condition application (LCA) corresponds to and supports the H-lB petition. 
The purpose of the LCA wage requirement is "to protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate any 
economic incentive or advantage in hiring temporary foreign workers." 1 It also serves to protect H-1 B 
workers from wage abuses. A petitioner submits the LCA to the Department of Labor (DOL) 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 . Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. 
§ 655.73l(a). While DOL certifies the LCA, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
1 See Labor Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Nonill11Iligrants on H-IB Visas in Specialty 
Occupations and as Fashion Models; Labor Certification Process for Pe1manent 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). 
MatterofC-c=] 
determines whether the LCA's content corresponds with the H-lB pet1t10n. See 20 C.F.R. 
§ 655.705(b) ("DHS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with 
the petition, .... "). 
With respect to the LCA, DOL provides clear guidance for selecting the most relevant O*NET 
occupational code classification. 2 The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" states the 
following: 
In determining the nature of the job offer, the first order is to review the requirements 
of the employer's job offer and determine the appropriate occupational classification. 
The O*NET description that corresponds to the employer's job offer shall be used to 
identify the appropriate occupational classification . . . . If the employer's job 
opportunity has worker requirements described in a combination of O*NET 
occupations, the NPWHC should default directly to the relevant O*NET-SOC 
occupational code for the highest paying occupation. For example, if the employer's 
job offer is for an engineer-pilot, the NPWHC shall use the education, skill and 
experience levels for the higher paying occupation when making the wage level 
determination. 
The Petitioner specified a position located within the "Operations Research Analysts" occupational 
category corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-2031 at a Level II 
wage rate. On the petition, the Petitioner identified the position as an "Applications Analyst." 
We reviewed the record of proceedings, but are not persuaded by the Petitioner's claim that the 
proffered position falls under the "Operations Research Analysts" occupational category. The 
proffered position, as generally described in the record, appears to correspond more closely to the 
"Software Developers, Applications" occupation. See O*NET Summary Report for "Software 
Developers, Applications," SOC code 15-1132 at https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-l 132 
(last visited Sept. 18, 2019). 3 Notably, the Level II prevailing wage for Software Developers, 
Applications is $72,509 4 versus $56,784 for Operations Research Analysts. Further, if the proffered 
position is "a combination of O*NET occupations," then the correct "O*NET-SOC occupational code 
[is the one] for the highest paying occupation." Therefore, the Director should determine whether the 
Petitioner selected the appropriate occupational title for the position. 
Considering these collective shortcomings, the Director should determine whether: (1) the LCA 
corresponds to and supports the H-lB petition; and (2) the petition is otherwise approvable. 
2 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/ 
pdti'NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf 
3 Notably, the Petitioner will "work with business analysts, architects, technical experts, and software vendors on the 
solution requirements, design, configuration, functionality, gap resolution, implementation, support maintenance, and 
enhancement of applications. 
4 See http://flcdatacenter.com 
2 
Matter of cLJ 
II. CONCLUSION 
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. 
Cite as Matter of c□ ID# 4615354 (AAO Sept. 20, 2019) 
3