dismissed H-1B Case: Oil And Gas

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 9868619 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 8, 2020 
The Petitioner, an oil and gas-subsea monitoring instrumentation and services company, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "field service engineer" under the H-lB nonirnmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. Irnrnigration 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 of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010) . We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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). Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1184(i)(l), defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge , and 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 section 214(i)(l) of the Act, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the 
proffered position must meet one of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 1 Lastly, 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(]) states that an H-lB classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will perform services in a specialty occupation ... " ( emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to 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. Without 
sufficient evidence regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform, we are unable to determine whether 
the Beneficiary will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
a specialty occupation and a position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). The services the Beneficiary will perform in the position determine: (1) the normal 
minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 
1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review 
for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of 
complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong 
of criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, 
when that is an issue under criterion 3; and ( 5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the 
specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality, we conclude that the record contains inconsistencies that 
undermine the Petitioner's claims regarding the proffered position, which precludes a determination 
of whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation under sections 
10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and 
(iii)(A).2 
1 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions ofa specialty occupation under 
section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). We construe the term "degree" 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 Cmp. v. Chertoff, 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"). 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt the H-lB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
2 
Specifically, the record does not (1) consistently describe the position's duties; and (2) establish that 
the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty 
occupation. 
While the Petitioner provided a lengthy description of the position, the record presents conflicting 
information regarding the level of responsibilities and duties. For example, the Petitioner indicates 
that 30% of the position's time involves "[s]upervising, executing, and commissioning the installation 
of subsea sensing and data collection systems in offshore and onshore oil and gas facilities, either 
national or international." The Petitioner describes the job duties' activities, in part, "lead 
mechanical/electronic corrections in compliance with engineering intent of the system being 
corrected," "lead and/or perform installation of sensing and data collection systems in oil & gas 
installations," "visit oil & gas maritime or onshore installations to evaluate conditions for the 
development of new products and communicate engineering intent to Engineering Department." This 
description suggests the Beneficiary will supervise, execute, and commission the installation of subsea 
sensing and data collection systems, and lead mechanical/electronic corrections and installations. 
However, as part of its assertion that the proffered position is entry-level, the Petitioner states: 
As Field Service Engineer, [the Beneficiary] will have his work assigned, closely 
supervised, reviewed, and constantly monitored by his supervisor ... and [the] Project 
Engineering Manager ... [The Beneficiary] meets with [ these individuals] on a daily 
basis to discuss his work assignments and progress. [They] closely monitor and review 
[the Beneficiary's] work. [The Beneficiary] does not act independently. In addition to 
being supervised on a daily and biweekly basis by [these individuals], [the Beneficiary] 
also reports to more senior-level personnel. 
Thus, the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary is constantly supervised and does not work independently. 
However, as quoted above, the language of the job description suggests supervisory and leadership 
duties that appear to contradict this claim. Moreover, the work samples provided also suggest a greater 
level of independence. For example, the Petitioner provided three offshore summary reports where 
the Beneficiary was listed as an on-site engineer, only one of which indicated he was accompanied by 
another engineer. Further, although these reports have signature lines for engineers, client 
representatives, and Petitioner's management, none of the submitted forms were signed by Petitioner's 
management. Rather, one was signed by the client and the Beneficiary, another was signed only by 
the client, and one was unsigned-suggesting management supervision was not required. In an index 
of another document describing itself as a commercial proposal, there is a list of the Petitioner's key 
personnel. There the Beneficiary is described as "[ e ]xperienced in offshore installations of standalone 
monitoring systems during riser run operations and via ROV" and as having "5 years of experience in 
the Oil and Gas Industry as Field Service Engineer." Thus, these documents collectively suggest a 
level of autonomy conflicting with the Petitioner's claims regarding the position's level of supervision. 
Similarly, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary "will not be responsible for the actual design of 
applications, but rather only work with his supervisors and team members" and that "all of his duties 
revolve around assisting and aiding his supervisors and senior team member[s]." First, we observe it 
is unclear what end-products would fall under the term "applications" and whether the Petitioner is 
suggesting that the Beneficiary is not involved in any actual independent engineering design. 
3 
However, seemingly contrary to this claim, the Petitioner's job description lists a support role for only 
a portion of the Beneficiary's duties. The Petitioner asserts that 10% of the duties involve "subsea 
product development activities" including "support mechanical design activities," "support 
engineering analysis activities," and "support production activities." On the other hand, the Petitioner 
also indicates that 20% of the duties involve, "[ c ]reating detailed drawings of new products and 
updating existing ones; and [c]reating and presenting new concept designs" and 15% involve, 
"[ d]eveloping new mechanical products, solving technical problems and designing manufacturable 
solutions." Among the activities the Petitioner indicates correspond to these creation and development 
duties are the ability to "[i]mplement field experience in the development of prototypes and propagate 
this specific intent to Engineering and Marketing Departments,""[ d]esignjigs and similar mechanisms 
to affectively [sic] and realistically enable and/or improve handling, troubleshooting an[ d] installation 
conditions of end products for testing and/or in the field to grant safe performance of the product in 
the field," and "[d]evelop tooling and equipment to test and handle end products in the office and/or 
in the field in consistency with engineering best practices to grant safe performance of the product in 
the field." That the Beneficiary is involved in actual engineering design is further supported by work 
samples provided by the Petitioner. For example, documents containing descriptions and analysis of 
a "Clamping Plate" and a "Jack Interface with Rollers" list the Beneficiary as the sole designer of the 
parts. Thus, the statement that the Beneficiary is not responsible for actual application design and that 
all his duties involve assisting and working with supervisors and team members appears to conflict 
with evidence suggesting he independently creates, designs, and develops prototypes, tools, and other 
equipment. 
Inconsistencies in the job description also raise questions regarding the occupational category 
designated on the labor condition application (LCA). On the LCA submitted in support of the H-lB 
petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Mechanical 
Engineering Technicians" corresponding to the standard occupational classification (SOC) code 
17-3027. 3 However, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the proffered position 
corresponds to the "Mechanical Engineering Technicians" occupational category. 4 To come to this 
conclusion, we reviewed information about this occupation found in the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) and Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET). 
The Handbook indicates that mechanical engineering technicians "help mechanical engineers design, 
develop, test, and manufacture mechanical devices, including tools, engines, and machines." 5 
Similarly, O*NET indicates they"[ a ]pply theory and principles of mechanical engineering to modify, 
3 A petitioner submits the LCA to U.S. Department of Labor to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B 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). 
4 While DOL is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to USCTS, DOL regulations note that 
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits branch, USCTS) is the department responsible 
for determining whether the content of an LCA filed for a particular Form T-129 actually supports that petition. See 
20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCTS ensure that "the petition is supported 
by an LCA which corresponds with the petition .... " 
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Mechanical Engineering Technicians, 
https ://www.bis.gov/ ooh/ architecture-and-engineering/mechanical-engineering- technicians.htm#tab-2 (last visited Nov. 
20, 2020). 
4 
develop, test, or calibrate machinery and equipment under direction of engineering staff or physical 
scientists." 6 However, as noted, the record contains discrepancies regarding the level of 
responsibilities and duties for the position. Specifically, the description also incorporates the duties 
of "Mechanical Engineers" (SOC code 17-2141 ), which has a higher prevailing wage. 7 
For example, the Handbook states mechanical engineers "analyze problems to see how mechanical 
and thermal devices might help solve particular problem," "design or redesign mechanical and thermal 
devices or subsystems, using analysis and computer aided design" or "investigate equipment failures 
or difficulties to diagnose faulty operations and to recommend remedies." 8 Similarly, O*NET states 
mechanical engineers "research, design, evaluate, install, operate, or maintain mechanical products, 
equipment, systems or processes to meet requirements," "confer with engineers or other personnel to 
implement operating procedures, resolve system malfunctions, or provide technical information," and 
"investigate equipment failures or difficulties to diagnose faulty operation and recommend remedial 
actions." 9 There are many more areas that similarly overlap and call into question whether the 
Petitioner chose the relevant occupational code for the highest paying occupation. Although the duties 
were described in length, they nevertheless do not provide sufficient detail to differentiate the 
proffered position's duties from other occupations. 10 Without substantive evidence demonstrating that 
the position is the occupation designated on the certified LCA we cannot conclude that the petition is 
supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, a necessary element to establish eligibility 
for this visa classification. 11 
The record contains additional discrepancies regarding the nature of the proffered position. On appeal, 
the Petitioner asserts that a Level I, entry level wage does not preclude a position from qualifying as a 
6 O*NET Details Rep011 for Mechanical Engineering Technicians, https://www.onetonline.org/link/details/l 7-3027.00 
(last visited Nov. 20, 2020). 
7 If the employer's job opp01iunity has worker requirements described in a combination of O*NET occupations, the 
employer should default directly to the relevant occupational code for the highest paying occupation. 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/pdt!NPWHC _ Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009.pdf 
8 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Mechanical Engineers, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/mechanical-engineers.htm#tab-2 (last visited Nov. 20, 2020). 
9 See O*NET Details Report for Mechanical Engineers, https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/17-2141.00 (last visited 
Nov. 20, 2020). 
10 Notably, the relevant prevailing wage for a Level I "Mechanical Engineering Technician" position, SOC code 17-3027 
($37,107 per year) is significantly lower than the relevant prevailing wage for a Level I ·'Mechanical Engineer" position, 
SOC code 17-2141 ($66,768 per year). See FLC Data Center Online Wage Library for "Mechanical Engineers," SOC 
code 17-2141 at https://www.flcdatacenter.com/OESWizardStart.aspx. Such a wage disparity highlights the difference 
between these occupational categories generally, and more specific to this case, the significance of the Petitioner's 
designation of the lower paying occupational category. 
11 To permit a petitioner to submit an LCA for a different occupation which has a lower prevailing wage than the position 
actually being petitioned for results in a petitioner paying a wage lower than that required by section 212(n)(l )(A) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § I 182(n)(l)(A). The LCA serves as the critical mechanism for enforcing section 212(n)(l) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § l l 82(n)( I). See Labor Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Non immigrants on H-1 B 
Visas in Specialty Occupations and as Fashion Models; Labor Certification Process for Permanent 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) 
(indicating that the wage protections in the Act seek "to protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate any economic incentive 
or advantage in hiring temporary foreign workers" and that this "process of protecting U.S. workers begins with [the filing 
of an LCA] with [DOL]."). The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that "the petition is 
supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition .... " 
5 
specialty occupation. The Petitioner also asserts that the fact an associate's degree is a normal entry 
requirement for the "Mechanical Engineering Technicians" occupation does not preclude finding the 
position is a specialty occupation when the "job duties are more complex, specialized or unique than 
those of [most other] Mechanical Engineering Technicians as identified by the [Handbook] under the 
'what they do' section." 
However, because the occupation does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty 
(or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry, designating the proffered position at a Level I wage level 
undermines the Petitioner's claims regarding the position. The Handbook states most employers only 
require an "associate's degree or other postsecondary training in mechanical engineering technology" 
such as "a certificate from a community college or vocational-technical school." Similarly, according 
to O*NET, the "Mechanical Engineering Technicians" occupation falls under Job Zone Three with a 
specific vocational preparation (SVP) range of 6 < 7. 12 A Job Zone Three designation means that 
"most occupations in this zone require training in vocational schools, related on-the-job experience, 
or an associate's degree." 13 However, the Petitioner asserts that it requires at least a bachelor's degree. 
An educational requirement of a bachelor's degree is more than what is required for Job Zone Three 
with SVP range of 6 < 7 and it should have resulted in at least a one level increase in the wage. 14 
Therefore, the stated requirement for a bachelor's degree for this position appears to be materially 
inconsistent with a Level I position. 
Moreover, the Petitioner's Level I designation highlights additional ambiguities in the record relating 
to the substantive nature of the position. For example, the record indicates that the Beneficiary's job 
duties include the responsibility to "[s]ort language barriers by using region and/or person specific 
language skills." While it is not clear where and with whom the Beneficiary would be required to sort 
language barriers, which foreign languages would be involved, if any, or the level of proficiency with 
those languages that would be required, we question whether a wage level increase would be necessary 
based on the foreign language requirement. 15 Similarly, the first two job duties described by the 
Petitioner, suggest some travel is required to "[ v ]isit oil and gas maritime or onshore installations" at 
either national or international facilities and "[ v ]isit third parties to review fabrication or modification 
of new or existing products." Nevertheless, we do not know the frequency or extent to which the 
Beneficiary would be required to travel and therefore cannot conclude whether it is incidental or would 
require a wage-level increase. 16 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director incorrectly applied the wage level guidance from 
DOL. We disagree. Contrary to the Petitioner's claim, our review of whether the LCA supports the 
petition includes determining if the wage level is correct and is not limited only to a determination of 
whether the "location, validity date, and petitioner name" on the LCA match those as listed on the 
petition. While there may be some overlap in considerations, USCIS' responsibility at its stage of 
adjudication is to ensure that the content of the DOL-certified LCA "corresponds with" the content of 
12 This SVP is defined as "[o]ver 1 year up to and including 2 years." https://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
13 For more information, see https://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones#zone3. 
14 See Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance. 
15 For additional information regarding foreign language and travel, see OFLC Frequently Asked Questions and Answers, 
under questions 9 and 11 below the "PWDs For Specific Occupations" header within the Prevailing Wage section available 
at https://www.foreignlaborce11.doleta.gov/faqsanswers.din#q!581(last visited Nov. 20, 2020). 
16 Id. 
6 
the H-1B petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). In order to determine if the wage level listed on an 
LCA corresponds to the petition, USCIS applies DOL's five step process for determining the 
appropriate wage level. 17 The wage level begins at a Level I and may increase up to a Level IV based 
on a comparison of the duties and requirements for the employer's proffered position to the general 
duties and requirements for the most similar occupation as provided by O*NET. Generally, we must 
first identify whether the O*NET occupation the Petitioner selected is correct, and then compare the 
experience, education, special skills and other requirements, and supervisory duties described in the 
O*NET entry to those the employer required for the proffered position. 
Here, even if the SOC code identified on the certified LCA was correct, which has not been 
established, the record contains additional inconsistencies that undermine the Petitioner's claims 
regarding the position. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). 
Given the lack of consistent information regarding the duties and requirements for the proffered 
position, the record does not establish the substantive nature of the proffered position such that we can 
conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The record 
also does not demonstrate that performing the duties of a level I wage "Mechanical Engineering 
Technician" would require the theoretical and practical application of highly specialized knowledge 
and attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. See section 
214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation). Therefore, 
the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation under 
sections 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l), 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(ii) and (iii)(A). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
17 See Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance. 
7