remanded H-1B Case: Home Decor Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8523565 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 28, 2020 
The Petitioner, a home decor importer and distributor, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
a "operations research analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. 1 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 California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the position qualified 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. 2 
We review the questions in this matter de nova. 3 Upon de nova review, we will remand the appeal. 
As noted, the Director concluded that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. However, 
the record of proceeding is not sufficiently developed to allow us to determine whether the proffered 
position is actually located within the occupational category for which the Department of Labor (DOL) 
ETA Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) was 
certified . 4 Without knowing the answer to that question, we cannot determine the actual, substantive 
nature of the position. This means that we cannot make a determination on the specialty -occupation 
question based on the current record. We therefore are withdrawing the Director's decision and 
remanding the matter for further review of the record and issuance of a new decision . Specifically, 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christa 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
4 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 I&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. 
the Director should first make a determination on whether the LCA was certified for the appropriate 
occupational category, and therefore corresponds to and supports this H-lB petition. 
It is unclear from the record whether the Petitioner established that the proffered position's duties 
actually correspond with those of positions located within SOC code 15-2031, corresponding to the 
occupational title "Operations Research Analysts"; the SOC code the Petitioner designated on the 
LCA. The Petitioner included duties-approximately comprising the vast majority of the 
Beneficiary's duties-that appear atypical to the SOC code on the LCA. Specifically, we observe the 
duties appear properly classified under the 13-1081.02 - Logistics Analysts occupational category. 
The DOL guidance explains that a job's SOC code is identified by selecting the Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) job description "that most closely matches the employer's request" from a list of 
similar occupations.5 DOL's Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals has interpreted this guidance 
to instruct employers to select the occupation that best corresponds to the employer's job offer. 6 
On the issue of whether we can provide relevant analysis of a position as a specialty occupation, a 
petitioner's selection of the incorrect SOC code on the LCA may preclude such an evaluation. 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. 
For example, 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. Offering an example, 
degree requirements for positions located in the Software Developers, Applications occupation 
(usually a bachelor's degree, typically in computer science, 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). 7 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. 
Additionally, the SOC code listed on the LCA falls within an O*NET Job Zone 5 grouping, while the 
Logistics Analysts occupation is within a Job Zone 4 grouping. Allowing the Petitioner to designate 
the incorrect SOC code could better position its arguments relating to increased education 
requirements that generally should not be associated with the Logistics Analysts occupational 
category. 
5 DOL, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs 
(rev. Nov. 2009) (DOL guidance), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdt!NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf 
6 See the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals decisions: Gen. Anesthesia Specialists P 'ship Med. Gip. (GASP), 
2013-PWD-00005, at 6 (Jan. 28, 2014); Emory Univ., 201 l-PWD-00001, at 6-7 (Feb. 27, 2012). 
7 See the relative entry for each occupational title found at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/. 
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