JUL262018_07D2101Decided 2018-07-26I-129

The AAO remanded an H-1B petition for a computer systems analyst at a faith-based rescue mission after finding the…

Remanded Useful for: appeal strategy
H-1BField: computer systems analyst
The outcome

Good news — this case cleared the first bar

The AAO withdrew the Director's denial and remanded for further proceedings because the record did not establish that the Labor Condition Application's SOC code corresponded to the actual duties of the proffered position, and inconsistencies in the organizational structure needed to be resolved.

In plain English

A faith-based rescue mission petitioned for an H-1B worker as a 'computer systems analyst,' but the AAO found the case premature for a specialty occupation analysis because the LCA's SOC code did not appear to match the actual job duties. The beneficiary's primary duty—maintaining a local area network for 145 users—suggested a closer fit to 'Network and Computer Systems Administrators' (SOC 15-1142) than 'Computer Systems Analysts' (SOC 15-1121). Additionally, the organizational charts submitted at different stages of the case were inconsistent, raising concerns about the legitimacy of the claimed IT department and the beneficiary's supervisory chain. The AAO withdrew the Director's denial and remanded for a new determination after giving the petitioner an opportunity to address these issues.

What worked & what failed

What failed: The petitioner's LCA used the 'Computer Systems Analysts' SOC code, but the actual job duties—especially spending 45% of time on network administration—appeared to correspond to a different occupational category. The organizational charts submitted at different procedural stages contradicted each other, undermining the credibility of the claimed position and reporting structure.

Takeaway: Ensure the SOC code on the LCA accurately reflects the actual duties of the proffered position before filing, as USCIS will scrutinize whether the LCA's occupational classification corresponds to what the employee will actually do. Maintain a consistent and well-documented organizational structure throughout the petition process, as changes in org charts between the RFE response and the appeal will raise red flags about the legitimacy of the position.

For RFE responses & petition building

Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating H-1B criteria.

Evidence that moved the needle

  • See summary above for details.

Evidence that wasn't enough alone

  • The petitioner's LCA used the 'Computer Systems Analysts' SOC code, but the actual job duties—especially spending 45% of time on network administration—appeared to correspond to a different occupational category
  • The organizational charts submitted at different procedural stages contradicted each other, undermining the credibility of the claimed position and reporting structure.
Find more H-1B cases with similar evidence patterns →
Evidence that persuaded the AAO

The duty breakdown showing the Beneficiary would spend 45% of time on LAN installation, configuration, maintenance, and support for up to 145 users, suggesting a closer match to 'Network and Computer Systems Administrators' (SOC 15-1142) than 'Computer Systems Analysts' (SOC 15-1121).

Where the evidence fell short

Petitioner's claim that the proffered position falls under the 'Computer Systems Analysts' occupational category, as the actual duties appeared inconsistent with that SOC code.

New organizational chart submitted on appeal, which contradicted the earlier organizational chart and raised concerns about the validity of the claimed organizational structure and managerial hierarchy.

Officer errors the AAO found

The Director's specialty occupation analysis was premature because the record did not first establish that the LCA's SOC code ('Computer Systems Analysts', 15-1121) corresponded to the actual duties of the proffered position.

The Director failed to address whether the proffered position was properly classified under the correct SOC code before conducting the specialty occupation analysis.

How the case moved

Completed

I-129 filed

Computer systems analyst / IT network and systems administrator at a faith-based rescue mission

Completed

California Service Center — Denied

Initial decision: Denied.

Completed

Appeal to the AAO

Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.

2018-07-26

AAO decision — Remanded

The AAO withdrew the Director's denial and remanded for further proceedings because the record did not establish that the Labor Condition Application's SOC code corresponded to the actual duties of the proffered position, and inconsistencies in the organizational structure needed to be resolved.

If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.

Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.

Buy me a coffee
Authorities the office relied on
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a)20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b)65 Fed. Reg. 80,110 (Dec. 20, 2000)
Simeio SolutionsA petitioner must submit a certified LCA demonstrating it will pay the H-1B worker the higher of the prevailing wage or actual wage; USCIS determines whether the LCA corresponds with the petition.
Matter of HoWhere inconsistencies exist in the record, the petitioner must resolve them with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.