remanded H-1B Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7281901 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 5, 2020 
The Petitioner, a solar energy solutions provider, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"financial analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations.' 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 does not 
establish that the Beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that the Director erred in the decision . 
While we conduct de nova review on appeal, a remand is warranted in this case because the Director's 
decision appears insufficient for review. Specifically, we note that whether the Department of Labor 
(DOL) ETA Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) , 
properly corresponds with and supports the petition is an antecedent issue compared to the proffered 
position qualifying as a specialty occupation. 2 In different terms, we cannot provide an accurate 
analysis for the proffered position under one Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code if the 
duties the Petitioner provided appear to more properly correspond with a different code . Accordingly, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and we will remand the matter to the Director for further 
review of the record and issuance of a new decision. 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section IO I (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b ), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b ). 
2 While DOL certifies the LCA, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determines whether the LCA's 
attestations and content corresponds with and supports the H-lB petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) ("DHS determines 
whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition ... . "). See also Matter of Simeio 
Solutions, 26 l&N Dec. 542, 546 n.6 (AAO 2015). When comparing the standard occupation classification (SOC) code 
or the wage level indicated on the LCA to the claims associated with the petition, USCIS does not purport to supplant 
DOL's responsibility with respect to wage determinations. There may be some overlap in considerations, but USCIS' 
responsibility at its stage of adjudication is to ensure that the content of the DOL-certified LCA "corresponds with" the 
content of the H-lB petition. Further, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may consider DOL regulations when 
adjudicating H-lB petitions. See Int '! Internship Programs v. Napolitano, 853 F. Supp. 2d 86, 98 (D.D.C. 2012), aff'd 
sub nom. lnt 'l Internship Program v. Napolitano, 718 F.3d 986 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 
As presently constituted, it does not appear that the record establishes that the LCA corresponds with 
and supports the petition. 3 We note that it appears the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence 
to establish that the SOC code 13-2051 corresponding to the occupational title "Financial Analysts" 
that the Petitioner designated on the LCA properly corresponds with the proffered position's duties. 
In particular, the Director should consider whether a portion of the duties are atypical to the Financial 
Analysts occupational title, and instead are more akin to the Management Analysts and the 
Accountants occupational titles. 
Initially, if the Petitioner selected the incorrect SOC code on the LCA, we cannot provide a relevant 
analysis of a position as a specialty occupation. The initial issue concerns the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of a specialty occupation and how these focus on the broader occupation as a whole, and 
the use of an incorrect occupational code may result in an erroneous outcome, or one that does not 
properly assess the actual nature of the occupation in which the Beneficiary would engage. 
A subordinate concern relates to the education requirements we consider under the regulatory criteria 
and how these may differ markedly from one occupational classification to the next. It would not be 
a valuable use ofUSCIS resources to analyze the position requirements under an incorrect SOC code. 
Namely, under the first criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]), degree requirements to enter an 
occupation are not the same for all positions in a particular field of endeavor. 
As a general example, degree requirements for positions located in the Software Developers, 
Applications occupation (usually a bachelor's degree, typically in computer science or software 
engineering) would generally be different from those in the Web Developers category (an associate's 
degree in web design or a related field is the most common requirement). 4 Likewise, when considering 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), a degree requirement considered common to the industry for one 
occupation may also be distinct in comparison to others. In making the determination on the SOC 
code, the Director should consider whether the Petitioner followed the DOL guidance, which explains 
that a job's SOC code is identified by selecting the O*NET job description that best corresponds to the 
employer's job offer. 5 
Subsequently, the Director may also wish to consider whether the Level I wage rate designated on the 
LCA sufficiently represents the correct wage level based on DOL's five-step process contained within 
the DOL guidance evaluating the atypical duties across the various SOC codes. 6 The correct wage 
rate appears to be above the Level I rate. If the Director concludes that both the SOC code and the 
wage rate designated on the LCA were correct, it should readdress whether the record demonstrates 
that the proffered position requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
3 See 20 C.F.R. ~ 655.705(6); Simeio Solutions, 26 T&N Dec. at 546 n.6. 
4 See the relative entry for each occupational title found at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/. 
5 DOL, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs 
(rev. Nov. 2009) (DOL guidance), available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_Guidance_ 
Revised_l 1_2009.pdfAlso see the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals decisions: Gen. Anesthesia Specialists 
P'shipMed. Gip. (GASP), 2013-PWD-00005, at 6 (Jan. 28, 2014); Emo1y Univ., 2011-PWD-00001, at 6-7 (Feb.27.2012). 
6 DOL guidance. 
2 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to consider the LCA issue and 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. 
3