remanded H-1B Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 25604450 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 24, 2023 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(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 Nebraska Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
(petition), concluding that the Petitioner did not establish the U.S . Department of Labor (DOL) ETA 
Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) supported the 
petition because the organization did not select the highest paying occupation when the position was 
comprised of a combination of occupations . 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 novo . Matter of Christa 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 
review, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case. 
The Petitioner filed the LCA in this case and designated the position to fall under the Manufacturing 
Engineers occupation and the 17-2112.03 standard occupational classificational (SOC) code. The 
Director issued correspondence notifying the Petitioner that correct classification for the position 
appeared to instead be under a higher paying occupational code, Architectural and Engineering 
Managers, 11-9041. After the Petitioner's responded to the notice, the Director denied the petition 
because the organization did not provide an LCA that was certified for the specialty occupation in 
which the Beneficiary would be employed. We note that the Director did not provide any analysis to 
address the Petitioner's arguments. 
Consequently , the record does not reflect that the Director provided the Petitioner with a meaningful 
opportunity to address or rebut their reasoning that led to an adverse decision. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(i) (requiring in writing specific reasons for denial of an application or petition); Matter 
of Saelee, 22 I&N Dec. 1258, 1262, 1286 (BIA 2000) (citing Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec . 786, 
787-88 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a filing to allow 
the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Accordingly, we 
will remand this matter to address this matter. 
Within that decision, the Director should be mindful to evaluate each of the position's duties, to include 
the percentage of time that the beneficiary would spend performing each job duty, and to compare and 
contrast those with the tasks, knowledge, and work activities generally associated with an 
Occupational Information Network SOC occupation to ensure the most relevant occupational code has 
been selected. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination 
Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009) (DOL guidance), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _ Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf. 
Accordingly, we will remand the matter to the Director to consider the LCA issue again and to enter 
a new decision. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new 
determination and any other issue. As such, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution 
of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2