dismissed H-1B Case: Engineering

MATTER OF A-S-&T-T-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 18, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an additive manufacturing (3D printing) and stem education technical services 
company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "engineering technician" under the 
H-lB nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's basis for 
denial of the petition was erroneous and contends that it satisfied all evidentiary requirements. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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. § 214.2(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: 
Matter of A-S-&T-T-, LLC 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry 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. Chertojj; 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-1 B petition, the Petitioner described the duties of the proffered position as "to apply, 
maintain and instruct the operating of additive manufacturing and rapid prototyping (AM/RP) 
equipment in educational, commercial and industrial applications. Apply 3D printing software 
applications and hardware technologies." The Petitioner's offer letter to the Beneficiary, submitted 
with the initial petition, similarly described the proffered duties as to "[ o ]perate desktop additive 
manufacturing and rapid prototyping (AM/RP) equipment for on-site and remote access use to 
produce items from materials such as plastics, wood and acrylic. Instruct users on CAD/CAM and 
use of AM/RP equipment." The offer letter further stated that the necessary knowledge and skills 
include "CAD/CAM, STL, MS Office and Windows-based applications," "[a]bility to read CAD 
drawings and schedule projects," and "knowledge of materials, production processes, inventory 
management, quality control and production scheduling." 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner asserted 
that the proffered position falls within the "Engineering Technicians, Except Drafters, All Other" 
occupational classification, corresponding to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 
17-3029, at a Level I wage level.
1 
1 
We will consider the Petitioner's classification of the proffered position at a Levell wage (the lowest of four assignable 
wage levels) in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by the DOL 
provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the 
2 
Matter of A-S-&T-T-, LLC 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner explained that its 3D printing 
business "represents the next generation of global manufacturing ... where computers, not operators 
run the machines." The Petitioner provided the following overview of the proffered position and the 
knowledge necessary to perform its duties: 
The proffered position encompasses CAD/CAM and STL-related programs, MS 
Office and Windows-based applications. The candidate must possess the ability to 
use and to teach CAD/CAM using AM/RP software and equipment. The position 
requires the ability to initiate, analyze and build projects with highly complex 
software and specialized AM/RP equipment. Excellent communication skills, 
written, oral and visual, are also required. Knowledge of materials, production 
processes, inventory management, quality control and production scheduling is 
necessary. This position also requires the ability to create and to analyze data 
algorithm. 
Later on in the same letter, the Petitioner highlighted the "highly technical nature and complex R&D 
requirements of the proffered position" and provided yet another description of the proffered 
position and its constituent job duties, as follows: 
Roles and Responsibilities: To design, develop and implement 3D pnntmg 
processes, technologies, software and equipment. Must collaborate with research and 
development engineers in different disciplines in the conceptualization, development 
and documentation of new and improved 3D printing technologies. 
Organizational Role: Serves as a member of a leadership team and is considered a 
leading high tech professional within the organization. Must be able to deal with 
challenging engineering tasks independently. The organization depends on this 
person's engineering knowledge and skills in successfully completing its projects. 
Job Responsibilities: Providing theoretical and technical input on the design, 
assembly, troubleshooting and repair of electro-mechanical products and systems; 
assemble and analyze data logs; interpreting and verifying mechanical and electrical 
drawings; conducting internal testing on prototype 3D printers; setting up and 
maintaining lab prototypes using CAD/CAM applications; apply knowledge of and 
Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that the 
Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will be 
closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_ll_2009.pdf. A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. /d. A Level I wage should be considered for research fellows, workers 
in training, or internships. !d. 
3 
Matter of A-S-&T- T-, LLC 
operation of various metals/plastic AM machines; hands on experience in maintaining 
and developing machine tools independently; knowledge of materials and materials 
science; strong competencies in applying engineering principles to 3D printing 
applications and development. 
Competencies: Must possess knowledge of additive manufacturing process and 
technologies. Must have the ability to design, develop and implement 3D printing 
technologies to meet client needs. Must possess the knowledge and skill to analyze 
data and make recommendations for technology and production improvement. 
Supervises the manufacturing process of 3D printing; answers complex questions 
related to 3D printing applications and principles; trains others on 3D printing design 
and applications using CAD software. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the proffered position "encompasses the positions of Industrial 
Engineering Technologist[s] (17-3209.05) and Manufacturing Engineering Technologist[s] 
(17-3209.06)," under the broader "Engineering Technicians, Except Drafters, All Other" 
occupational classification designated on the LCA. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires at least a bachelor's degree in engineering, or its 
equivalent. 
III. ANALYSIS 
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.2 
As a preliminary and fundamental matter, we find that the Petitioner has not consistently described 
the proffered position, its associated job duties, and the knowledge and skills necessary to perform 
them. The Petitioner initially described the duties of the proffered position as limited to the 
operation of and instruction in additive manufacturing and rapid prototyping (AM/RP) equipment. 
The Petitioner initially stated that the proffered duties require knowledge of CAD/CAM, STL, MS 
Office and Windows-based applications, materials, production processes, inventory management, 
quality control, and production scheduling. 
In response to the Director's RFE, however, the Petitioner substantially expanded upon the proffered 
duties and its requirements. For instance, the Petitioner's RFE response listed numerous job duties 
involving the design and development of 3D printing processes, technologies, software, and 
equipment. The Petitioner's initial descriptions of the job duties did not specifically contain any 
design or development duties. Nor are these design and development duties consistent with the 
"Engineering Technicians, Except Drafters, All" (SOC code 17-3029) occupational classification 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-S-&T-T-, LLC 
selected on the LCA In particular, while the Petitioner asserts that the proffered positiOn 
encompasses the "Industrial Engineering Technologists" (SOC code 17-3029.05) and 
"Manufacturing Engineering Technologists" (SOC code 17-3029.06) occupational sub-categories, 
neither of them contain any design or development duties.3 Additionally, the Petitioner's RFE 
response elevated the knowledge and skills required to perform the proffered duties to include 
"complex [research and development] R&D requirements" and the "ability to create and to analyze 
data algorithm." 
Furthermore, the Petitioner's RFE response stated that the Beneficiary in the proffered position 
would be a "member of a leadership team" and would "[supervise] the manufacturing process of 3D 
printing." But the position's claimed supervisory or leadership role is not apparent from the 
Petitioner's initial job descriptions or documents. For example, the Petitioner's organizational chart 
(submitted with the initial petition) depicts the Beneficiary in a standalone "engineering technician" 
position with no direct subordinates. 4 And as previously noted, the Petitioner submitted an LCA for 
a Level I position (through the Level I wage rate), which indicates that the proffered position is a 
comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the same occupation.5 The 
Petitioner's Level I wage rate designation is inconsistent with the proffered position's claimed 
supervisory or leadership role and duties. 
Moreover, the Petitioner's RFE response implies that the proffered position is actually an engineer 
position. To illustrate, the Petitioner stated that positions in the field of additive manufacturing/3D 
printing have primarily been filled by "mechanical engineers" and "industrial engineers." The 
Petitioner cited an article published in the 
stating that "in additive manufacturing (3D printing), most companies are looking specifically for 
engineers (emphasis in original)." The Petitioner also stated that because its company conducts its 
own research and development, "it is essential that [its] engineering technicians have the same 
qualifications, credentials, and educational background as manufacturing and R&D engineers." As 
previously mentioned, however, the Petitioner submitted an LCA certified for a position falling 
under the "Engineering Technicians, Except Drafters, All" (SOC code 17-3029) occupational 
classification. The Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how its statements and evidence 
regarding engineer positions relate to its proffered position, as initially described.6 
3 See Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Details Report for "Industrial Engineering Technologists," 
http://www.onetonline.org/linkldetails/17-3029.05 (last visited Aug. I 0, 2016); O*NET Details Report for 
"Manufacturing Engineering Technologists," http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/17-3029.06 (last visited Aug. I 0, 
2016). 
4 The organizational chart also depicts the Beneficiary as reporting to the Petitioner's executive vice president, not to its 
president/sole owner as later claimed in the RFE response. 
5 For more information on wage levels, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009.pdf. 
6 Compare, e.g., with the occupational categories of "Manufacturing Engineers" (SOC code 17-2199.04) and "Industrial 
Engineers" (SOC code 17-2112.00), both of which typically perform design and development duties unlike the 
engineering technologist sub-categories chosen by the Petitioner. For more information on these engineering categories, 
see O*NET Details Report for "Manufacturing Engineers," http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/17-2199.04 (last 
5 
Matter of A-S-&T-T-, LLC 
The purpose of an RFE is to elicit further information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit 
sought has been established. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(b )(8). When responding to an RFE (or thereafter), the 
Petitioner cannot offer a new position to the Beneficiary, or materially change a position's associated 
job responsibilities, level of authority within the organizational hierarchy, or requirements. The 
Petitioner must establish that the position offered to the Beneficiary when the petition was filed 
merits classification for the benefit sought. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1978). If significant changes are made to the initial request for approval, the 
Petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the 
facts in the record. The information provided by the Petitioner in its response to the Director's RFE 
did not clarify or provide more specificity to the original duties of the position, but rather, added new 
duties and requirements to the job description. Therefore, our analysis of the proffered position will 
be based on the Petitioner's job descriptions and evidence submitted with the initial petition.7 
A. First Criterion 
We turn 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 
entry into the particular position.8 To inform this inquiry, we normally recognize the Department of 
Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirement~ of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.9 
visited Aug. I 0, 20 16); O*NET Details Report for "Industrial Engineers," http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/17-
2112.00 (last visited Aug. I 0, 20 16). The lack of design and development duties for the engineering technologist sub­
categories corresponding to the Petitioner's LCA further supports our conclusion that the RFE response significantly 
changed the nature of the proffered job duties. 
7 The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director "arbitrarily alleged that Petitioner's proffered position of Engineering 
Technician is the same as an industrial engineering technician as defined in the [Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook)]." Contrary to the Petitioner's assertion, however, positions under this occupational category perform duties 
such as "[d]esign new equipment or materials or recommend revision to methods of operation, material handling, 
equipment layout, or other changes." O*NET Details Report for "Industrial Engineering Technicians," 
http://www.onetonline.org/linkldetails/17-3026.00 (last visited Aug. 10, 20 16). These duties are consistent with the 
proffered job duties of designing and developing 3D printing processes, technologies, software, and equipment, as 
described in the Petitioner's RFE response. Therefore, the Director's decision was not "arbitrary," as claimed. 
Nevertheless, as we find that the Petitioner's job descriptions in its RFE response changed significantly from the initial 
job duties, we will not follow the Director's decision to analyze the proffered position under the "Industrial Engineering 
Technicians" occupational classification. As explained above, our analysis of the proffered position will be based on the 
Petitioner's initial job descriptions, taking into consideration the occupational classification and related sub­
classifications (i.e, "Industrial Engineering Technologists" and "Manufacturing Engineering Technologists") as asserted 
on the LCA. 
8 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
9 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, 
however, 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 USCIS regularly reviews 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 
6 
Matter of A-S-&T-T-, LLC 
We reviewed the section of the Handbook covering "Engineering Technicians, Except Drafters, All 
Other." However, the Handbook does not provide a detailed narrative account or summary data for 
this occupational category. 10 Accordingly, in certain instances, the Handbook is not 
determinative. When the Handbook does not support the proposition that a proffered position is one 
that meets the statutory and regulatory provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the 
Petitioner to provide persuasive evidence (e.g., documentation from another objective, authoritative 
source) that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies this criterion, notwithstanding the 
absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Summary 
Reports for "Industrial Engineering Technologists" (SOC code 17-3029.05) and "Manufacturing 
Engineering Technologists" (SOC code 17-3029.06). The Petitioner claims that these two 
subsections of the occupational category most relevantly reflect the duties of the proffered position 
and its requirements. 
The O*NET summary reports, however, are insufficient to establish that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation normally requiring at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. Contrary to the assertions of the Petitioner, O*NET does not state a 
requirement for a bachelor's degree for this occupation. Rather, for both industrial engineering and 
manufacturing engineering technologists, O*NET assigns them a Job Zone "Four" rating which 
groups them among occupations for which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some 
do not." As pointed out by the Petitioner, only 68% of industrial engineering technologists and 52% 
of manufacturing engineering technologists have a bachelor's degree. This information is not 
indicative of a requirement of a bachelor's degree, and moreover, does not convey whether the 
bachelor's degrees possessed by the employees are in any specific field of study. The O*NET 
reports therefore do not sufficiently demonstrate that positions within the "Industrial Engineering 
Technologists" and "Manufacturing Engineering Technologists" sub-categories qualify as a 
specialty occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
In this case, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an occupational 
category for which an authoritative source indicates that normally the minimum requirement for 
entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
10 There are occupational categories which are not covered in detail by the Handbook, including the "Engineering 
Technicians, Except Drafters, All Other" occupational classification. Nonetheless, the Handbook does list the "typical 
entry-level education" for this occupational classification as an associate's degree. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail," 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/ About/Data-for-Occupations-Not-Covered-in-Detail.htm (last visited Aug. I 0, 20 16). 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-S-&T-T-, LLC 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "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[.) " 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
contemplates the common industry practice, while the alternative prong nanows 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 industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement , factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest 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. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed , the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook or another authoritative source repot1s a requirement for at least a bachelor 's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the 
matter. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted two letters in support of the assertion that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required to perform the duties of the 
proffered position. 
The first letter is written by director of operations for identified as 
"the national accelerator for additive manufacturing (AM) and 3D printing (3DP)." 
claims that "the availability of expertise and knowledgeable individuals in this field is limited ," and 
that at least a bachelor's degree in engineering is required for the position of engineering technician. 
further states that there is a preference for degrees in industrial and mechanical 
engmeenng. 
The Petitioner also submits a letter from director of the at the 
at which he identifies as "a leading research center for additive 
manufacturing." like also states that at least a bachelor's degree in 
engineering is required for an engineering technician position , with a preference for degrees in 
industrial or mechanical engineering. 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-S-&T-T-, LLC 
While and both assert a general industry standard of at least a bachelor's 
degree in engineering for engineering technician positions, they do not reference any supporting 
authority or empirical basis for their pronouncement "[G]oing on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings." Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure 
Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'! Comm 'r 1972)). Furthermore, both and 
state that "[ w ]hile some universities and professional organizations are developing 
certifications, credentialing and degree programs, much of the workforce is learning-on-the-job, 
employing skills of engineering, design and creativity in this evolving field." 11 Their statement that 
many engineering technicians are "learning-on-the-job," and that certification and credentialing 
programs are available in addition to degree programs, undermines the assertion that at least a 
bachelor's degree in engineering is required for engineering technician positions. 
Moreover, neither individual demonstrates an in-depth knowledge of how the duties of the proffered 
position would actually be performed in the context of the Petitioner's specific business operations. 
For instance, there is no indication that and are aware of the proffered 
position's characterization as an entry-level engineering technologist position expected to have only 
a basic understanding of the occupation (as indicated by the wage-level on the LCA). It appears that 
and would have found this information relevant for their opinion letters. 
There is also no evidence that either or has visited the Petitioner's business, 
observed the Petitioner's engineering technician employees, interviewed them about the nature of 
their work, or documented the knowledge that they apply on the job. 
Notably, at least two paragraphs are repeated verbatim in both letters, with a third paragraph that 
contains virtually identical wording. The use of identical language and phrasing across the various 
letters suggests that the language in the letters is not the authors' own. C.f Surinder Singh v. BIA, 
438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (upholding an adverse credibility determination in asylum 
proceedings based in part on the similarity of the affidavits); Mei Chai Ye v. US Dept. of Justice, 
489 F .3d 517, 519 (2d Cir. 2007) (concluding that an immigration judge may reasonably infer that 
when an asylum applicant submits strikingly similar affidavits, the applicant is the common source). 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits two new opinion letters: one from faculty member 
of and one from chief operating officer of the 
Both and state the general duties 
associated with an engineering technician position, and specifically discuss the Beneficiary's 
credentials, determining that he is well-qualified for the position. However, we once again note that 
these letters, like the letters previously discussed, simply state a general industry educational 
standard for engineering technician positions without any references to supporting authority or 
empirical data. There is also insufficient discussion of the specific position proffered here, which 
the Petitioner certified as a Level I, entry-level engineer technologist position. Also like the 
11 Their letters do not clarify the amount of "learning-on-the-job" required. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-S-&T-T-, LLC 
previous letters, there are a number of sentences that are identical or virtually identical to those 
contained in the letters from and 
In summary, and for each and all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the opinion letters 
rendered by and are insufficient to establish the 
proffered position as a specialty occupation. The conclusions reached lack the requisite specificity 
and detail and are not supported by independent, objective evidence demonstrating the manner in 
which such conclusions were reached. There is an inadequate factual foundation established to 
support the opinions, and the opinions are not in accord with other information in the letters. 
Therefore, the letters do not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. We may, 
in our discretion, use advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. However, where 
an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required 
to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 
(Comm'r 1988). 
Also under the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2), the Petitioner references 
vacancy announcements purportedly posted by - Recruiting/Staffing and an unnamed 
company in Northeast Ohio. But the Petitioner did not submit copies of the actual advertisements. 
Without corroborating evidence, the Petitioner's bare assertions regarding these advertisements will 
not be further considered. Again, "going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings." Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 165. 
Finally, the Petitioner submits the article as well as an article from the 
both of which discuss the hiring of "engineers" in the 3D printing industry. However, as these 
articles focus on engineer positions, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the relevance of 
these articles in demonstrating that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. We therefore 
will not further consider these articles under this or any other criterion. 
For the reasons discussed above, 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 next 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. 
As evidence of the position's claimed complexity or uniqueness, the Petitioner described its "high 
tech" business operations, including the fact that the company designs and builds its own "state-of­
the-art" 3D printers and conducts research and development. The Petitioner stated: "To accomplish 
10 
Matter of A-S-& T-T-, LLC 
these tasks, it is essential that [its] engineering technicians have the same qualifications, credentials, 
and educational background as manufacturing and R&D engineers." 
As we previously discussed, the Petitioner submitted a certified LCA not for an engineer position, 
but for a position falling under the "Engineering Technicians, Except Drafters, All" (SOC code 17-
3029) occupational classification. Moreover, the Petitioner designated the proffered position on the 
LCA as an entry-level position within this occupational category (by selecting a Level I wage). In 
light of the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position under the 
"Engineering Technicians, Except Drafters, All" occupational classification, we cannot find that the 
particular position here is so complex or unique such that its duties can only be performed by an 
individual with at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, 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. As the Petitioner has not sufficiently and credibly 
developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, the Petitioner 
has not satisfied the second alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
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. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is 
necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a 
proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing the 
Petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could 
be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner created a token 
degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 
201 F.3d at 388. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "it previously hired two individuals who performed similar job 
duties and tasks as has been described for the Beneficiary." The Petitioner claims that these two 
individuals possess a bachelor's degree in industrial technology with an associate's degree in 
mechanical engineering, and a bachelor's degree in industrial engineering. But the Petitioner did not 
submit objective evidence of these individuals' employment, job duties, or educational 
II 
Matter of A-S-&T-T-, LLC 
qualifications. Absent objective corroborating evidence, the record is insufficient to demonstrate 
that these individuals were, in fact, employed in the proffered position and possess the said degrees. 
The Petitioner acknowledges that the Beneficiary is the only individual currently employed by the 
Petitioner as an engineering technician. Although the Petitioner submitted a copy of its job vacancy 
announcement for the proffered position, identified as a "Rapid Prototyping Lab Technician," this 
posting, alone, is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner routinely hires only specialty-degreed 
individuals for the proffered position. 12 
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to support the assertion that it 
normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the 
proffered position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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. 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner provided its revised description of the proffered 
position, which included the design, development, and supervisory/leadership duties not found in the 
Petitioner's initial job descriptions. The Petitioner also supplemented the record with a copy of an 
engineering project designed by the Beneficiary using 3D printing, thereby reinforcing his design 
and development duties. But as we previously discussed, these job duties are not consistent with the 
Petitioner's initial descriptions ofthe profferedjob duties, which were limited to the operation of and 
instruction in additive manufacturing and rapid prototyping equipment. We therefore cannot take 
into consideration these duties which the Petitioner claims are so specialized or complex. 
We again incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered 
position, and the designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I, entry-level position 
relative to others within the "Engineering Technicians, Except Drafters, All" occupational 
category. 13 Without further evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position 
12 This posting lists the offered salary as $52,374 per year. This is significantly higher than the wage of $41,496 per year 
being offered to the Beneficiary. 
13 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Levell, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies 
as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
12 
Matter of A-S-&T-T-, LLC 
is one with specialized and complex duties usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner has submitted inadequate 
evidence to satisfy the criterion ofthe regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The burden is on the 
Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-S-&T-T-, LLC, ID# 17738 (AAO Aug. 18, 2016) 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
13