dismissed H-1B Case: Welding Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe : 9095180 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 2, 2020 
The Petitioner, a welding consumables manufacturer, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"welding wire process engineer" under the H-lB nonimrnigrant 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-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. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record , for the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. In her decision, the Director thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's failure to 
meet any of the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) - (4). Upon consideration 
of the record, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. See Matter of P. 
Singh, Attorney, 26 I&N Dec . 623 (BIA 2015) ( citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 
1994); see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the 
facts and evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly 
resolved by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" 
provided the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly review the expert opinion letter 
submitted in response to the request for evidence from.__ ______ __, Professor of Tn~ustrial 
~neering and Chair oflnterdisciplinary Operations Research Graduate Program at thd I 
l__JUniversity. Upon review, we've determined that the Petitioner's reliance on the expert opinion 
letter is misplaced. 
In his letter,I 10) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the 
nature of the proffered position; (2) lists the job duties of the proffered position provided by the 
Petitioner; and (3) states that the position would require a bachelor's degree or its equivalent, in 
industrial engineering or a closely related field. We carefully evaluated I Is assertions in 
support of the instant petition but find them insufficient. 
In this instance, I I's letter does not substantiate his conclusions, such that we can conclude 
that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof First, I I compares the duties of the proffered 
position to those in O*NET for "Manufacturing Engineers" and briefly reiterates that "O*NET states 
that most Manufacturing Engineers positions require a four-year Bachelor's Degree, and knowledge 
and skills in applying principles, techniques, procedures, and equipment to the design and production 
of various goods and services." However, he does not discuss the specific relevance of those 
references and does not further reference, cite, or discuss any studies, surveys, industry publications, 
authoritative publications, or other sources of emrrical information that he may have consulted to 
complete his evaluation. 1 Similarly,! does not address O*NET's finding that 20% of 
individuals in this occupation do not have a bachelor's degree or explain how the proffered position 
is different from other manufacturing engineer 2ositions such that it would require a bachelor's degree 
in a specific field. Additionally, we note that I ts vague reference to the knowledge and 
skills listed for the occupation in O*NET is not sufficient to establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty is required for the position. While the position may require a specific skillset or 
knowledge, O*NET indicates that a bachelor's degree may be required by some employers but does 
not identify a specific specialty for the degree. Thus, the evidence does not support the Petitioner's 
reliance on this information. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states thatl I is an expert in the field of industrial engineering and 
thus is not required to consult other sources of information when outlining his opinion on the 
educational requirements for the proffered position. The Petitioner states thatl Is expertise 
arises from his master's degree and Ph.D. in industrial and systems engineering, more than 32 years 
of experience as a faculty member, more than 115 peer-reviewed papers published in leading journals, 
more than 3,100 citations to his work, receipt of prestigious national awards, and possession of 
significant industrial experience in national and multinational corporations. However, his supporting 
documentation indicates that most of his experience over the past 40 years has been in an academic 
setting within a university 2 and he does not provide any dates or specific information to indicate any 
recent relevant consulting work in the Petitioner's area of business. Moreover.I I has not 
provided sufficient information to establish his expertise on the practices of organizations seeking to 
1 While I I does reference O*NET, the Director's decision has already discussed why O*NET does not report an 
industry-wide requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, again, we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter. 
2 We note that there is a position of "systems analyst" at a company in Spain from 1979-1980. 
2 
hire "welding wire process engineers." Without further clarification, it is unclear how his education, 
training, skills, or experience would translate to expertise regarding the current recruiting and hiring 
practices of an enterprise engaged in "welding and soldering equipment manufacturing" ( as designated 
by the Petitioner in the petition) or similar organizations for "welding wire process engineers" ( or 
parallel positions). 3 
Additionally, the Petitioner addresses the Director's determination that I I did not 
demonstrate in-depth knowledge of the Petitioner's business operations and states that he "specifically 
detailed the nature of [the Petitioner's] business operations on page 2 of his opinion, thus 
demonstrating that his expert opinion is formed specifically in the context of these operations." 
However, the single paragraph on page 2 ofl l's letter referencing the Petitioner's business 
and operations is recited virtually verbatim from the Petitioner's letter of support in the record. While 
this description may be accurate and appropriate, it does not adequately convey! Is 
knowledge of the Petitioner's business and its operations such that he could assess the nature of the 
position within the appropriate context. 
Further, I I states that he reviewed the duties of the proffered position provided by the 
Petitioner and concluded that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree, or equivalent, in 
industrial engineering or a closely related field. While we appreciate his brief discussion of the generic 
duties provided bf: the Petitioner and the general core curricula covered in the industrial engineering 
field, I 's letter still falls short of providing a meaningful discussion of what the Beneficiary 
would actually do in the proffered position and how those duties actually require the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. For example, in this discussion, D I lonly emphasized two of the listed duties for the position and stated those duties "could only 
be performed competently by a candidate with at least a bachelor's degree in industrial engineering or 
a related area." He then briefly stated what a student would learn in three specific courses within the 
industrial engineering major that would prepare a student to perform those duties. However, while he 
listed the duties provided by the Petitioner in his letterJ ldid not discuss the specifics of the 
particular tasks upon which the Beneficiary would work in meaningful detail. As such, we conclude 
that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that I I adequately assessed the nature of the position 
and appropriately determined parallel positions based upon the job duties and level of responsibilities. 
Furthermore, I I states that "it is standard for a company such as [the Petitioner] ... [and] 
[i]t is typical for a steel based technology and capital goods firm to hire a Welding Wire Process 
Engineer or someone in a similar professional position, and require the minimum attainment of a 
Bachelor's Degree or higher in Industrial Engineering or a related area for the position." However, 
whild I states that "this type of position is a typical job placement" for students completing 
a bachelor's degree in industrial engineering and "[e]mployers with openings for [this position] and 
similar professional positions have recruited at [his] campus, always seeking graduates with the 
minimum of a Bachelor's Degree in the above fields," he does not provide any evidence of these 
requirements and does not further reference, cite, or discuss any studies, surveys, industry 
3 The Petitioner designated its business operations under the North American Industry Classification System code 333992, 
which is for "Welding and Soldering Equipment Manufacturing" and is described as an industry "primarily engaged in 
manufacturing welding and soldering equipment and accessories ( except transformers), such as arc, resistance, gas, plasma. 
laser, electron beam, and ultrasonic welding equipment; welding electrodes; coated or cored welding wire; and soldering 
equipment (except handheld)." For additional information, see https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. 
3 
publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical information that he may have 
consulted to complete his evaluation. As such, it remains unclear how I I reached his 
conclusions as to the industry educational requirements for the proffered position. 
We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of 
Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 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. Id. Consistent with Caron Int 'l, we conclude that this evaluation does not 
satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
II. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. 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 here, and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4