dismissed H-1B Case: Automotive Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5445793 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 20, 2020 
The Petitioner , an automotive engineering service provider, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
"quality engineer" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-1 B 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 evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal , 
the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in the decision. 
Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition , but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition , the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard. Matter ofCha wathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for ently into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojf, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a 
particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-IB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "quality engineer." The 
Petitioner initially provided the position's description, and expanded on those duties in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE). For the sake of brevity, we will not quote the most recent 
version; however, we note that we have closely reviewed and considered the duties. According to the 
Petitioner, the proffered position requires a Bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering, industrial 
engineering, or a related field. 
III. ANALYSTS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
2 
entry into the particular position. We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements 
of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 3 
On the labor condition application (LCA)4 submitted in support of the H-IB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Engineers, All Other" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 17-2199. We note that there 
are occupational categories which are not covered in detail by the Handbook. The Handbook suggests 
that for at least some of the occupations, little meaningful information could be developed. When the 
Handbook does not support the proposition that a proffered position is a specialty occupation, it is the 
Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other objective, 
authoritative sources) that indicates whether the particular position in question qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. We will consider and weigh all of the evidence presented. 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner referenced DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) 
summary report for "Validation Engineers" listed as SOC code 17-2199.02. The summaiy report 
provides general information regarding the occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's 
assertion regarding the educational requirements for these positions. 
We will first focus on the Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating. DOL assigns the occupation 
"Validation Engineers" a SVP 7 < 8. This indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to 
and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating provides the total number of years of 
vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe 
how those years are to be divided among training, formal education, and experience - and it does not 
specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 5 
Next, we will address DOL's designation in the summaiy report of the occupation as a Job Zone Four. 
Similar to the SVP rating, the summary report does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job 
Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the duties performed. Finally, we note that the 
summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but does not account for 
100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation are not distinguished 
by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph in the summary 
report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific specialty. 6 
3 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source ofrelevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit 
sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty degree 
requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a ce1tified LCA to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to demonstrate 
that it will pay the Beneficiary 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 experience and qualifications who 
are performing the same services. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
5 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
6 Nor is it apparent that these individuals' credentials were hiring prerequisites. 
3 
We conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is located within an 
occupational categmy for which the Handbook, or any other relevant, authoritative source, indicates 
that the nmmal minimum entty requirement is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
the equivalent. Moreover, the Petitioner has not provided documentation from another probative 
source to substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entty into this particular 
position. The Petitioner therefore has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industty in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong casts its gaze upon 
the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industty in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industty's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industty establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. at 1102 (considering these "factors" to inform the 
commonality of a degree requirement). 
The Petitioner provided job vacancy announcements placed by other companies that we reviewed. 
Notably, the Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative these job 
advertisements are of the particular advertising employer's recruiting history for the type of job 
advertised. Further, as they are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of what qualifications 
were ultimately required for the positions. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient information regarding the hiring employer such 
that we can determine whether they are "similar organizations," as required by the regulations. On 
appeal, the Petitioner contends that the "nature" of the business will satisfy this requirement, and noted 
that "in automotive industty, auto parts/systems manufacturers/markers should be deemed as similar 
organizations." When determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same general 
characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, 
when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing (to list 
just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an 
organization is similar and conducts business in the same industly without providing a legitimate basis 
for such an assertion. For instance, the Petitioner did submit information regarding the employers' 
4 
revenue or staffing. Several of the job advertisements do not provide any explanation of the 
organizations. The Petitioner did not sufficiently supplement the record of proceedings to establish 
that these advertising organizations are similar. 
Further, some of the postings do not include sufficient information about the tasks and responsibilities 
for the advertised positions. Thus, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties 
and responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to those of the proffered position. As the 
documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, further 
analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. 7 That is, not every deficit of eve1y job posting has been addressed. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will now consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
The Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty 
degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it may believe 
are so complex and unique. While a few related courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties 
of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses 
leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to 
perfmm the duties of the proffered position. The description of the duties does not specifically identify 
any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
The record does not establish which of the duties, if any, of the proffered position would be so complex 
or unique as to be distinguishable from those of similar but non-degreed or non-specialty degreed 
employment. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the pos1t10n, and references his 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
7 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
5 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 
See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self­
imposed requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the 
United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created a token degree 
requirement. Id. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
The Petitioner submitted the current organizational chart, and indicated that it employs two quality 
engineers who have earned a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. The Petitioner was 
established in 2008, but we do not know the total number of people it has employed to serve in the 
proffered position. Consequently, it cannot be determined how representative the Petitioner's claim 
regarding two employees who hold the position of quality engineer ( over an 11 year period of time) is 
of the Petitioner's normal recruiting and hiring practices. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner provided information regarding the proffered position and its 
business operations. The generalized description of the Petitioner's overall clientele and business 
operations does not give sufficient insight into the particular duties of the proffered position as it will 
be performed and whatever project(s) to which the Beneficiary will be assigned. The Petitioner's 
description does not convey the substantive nature of the work that the Beneficiary would actually 
perform, the actual systems utilized by the Petitioner, or any particular body of highly specialized 
knowledge that would have to be theoretically and practically applied to perform it. 
The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that 
only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. That is, the Petitioner failed to establish 
how the Beneficiary's responsibilities and day-to-day duties are so complex or unique that the position 
can be performed only by an individual with a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
As the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative specialization and complexity as an aspect of 
the duties of the position, it has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
6 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7