remanded H-1B Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5493337 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 22, 2020 
The Petitioner, a mortgage brokerage firm, seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as an "income 
specialist" under the H-IB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations.' The H-IB 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 Vermont Service Center denied the Fo1m I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, concluding that the record did not establish that the proffered position qualified as a specialty 
occupation . On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director committed an error in denying the 
petition. 
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 It is unclear from the record whether the Petitioner 
established that 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 and the Office of Foreign 
Labor Certification's (OFLC) Frequently Asked Questions and Answers. 3 These sources instruct the 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b ), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
2 While Department of Labor (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 wage level or the standard 
occupation classification (SOC) code 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 ens me that the content of the DOL-certified 
LCA "corresponds with" the content of the H-1B petition. Further, USCIS may consider DOL regulations when 
adjudicating H-lB petitions. See lnt 'l 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). 
3 See DOL, Emp 't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance , Nonagric. Immigration Programs 
public on selecting the correct wage level evaluating various aspects such as any atypical duties across 
SOC codes that an employer's job may include. 
Here, the Petitioner obtained an LCA certified under the SOC code 13-2051.00 relating to the 
"Financial Analysts" category at a Level I prevailing wage rate. The Petitioner stated the Beneficiary 
would conduct "complex financial analyses to evaluate the credit risk of residential mortgages. 
Specifically, he will underwrite and analyze the tax returns of self-employed borrowers to determine 
income needed to qualify for a mortgage loan." It further indicated that "the duties of the [proffered 
position] require an individual with an in-depth and well developed understanding of 
quantitative/mathematical finance." 
Although it appears the Petitioner selected the most appropriate SOC code ( e.g., the code associated 
with the higher paying wage), what is unclear from the record is whether it properly designated the 
prevailing wage at a Level I wage rate. We question whether the specific skills required for the job 
are generally encompassed by the Occupational Information Network description for Financial 
Analysts. 4 In particular, the quantitative functions appear to properly relate to Financial Analysts; 
however, the responsibilities relating to risks surrounding extending credit or lending money (possibly 
the Credit Analysts category under SOC code 13-2041) and those associated with evaluating and 
recommending approval or denial of mortgage loans (possibly the Loan Officers occupation under 
SOC code 13-2072) seem to be atypical for the occupational category the Petitioner designated on the 
LCA. The correct wage rate appears to be within the Level II to Level III range. The Director should 
take the necessary steps to make this determination. 
As the Petitioner was not previously accorded the opportunity to address the above, we will remand 
the record for further review of these issues. The Director may request any additional evidence 
considered pertinent to the new determination. 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. 
(rev. Nov. 2009) (DOL guidance), available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_Guidance_ 
Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf; OFLC Frequently Asked Questions and Answers, Foreign Labor Certification (Dec. 1 L 2019), 
https://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/faqsanswers.cfm. 
4 See Step 4 of the DOL guidance. 
2