remanded H-1B Case: Manufacturing Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 06, 2025 In Re: 36606918 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a master pressing expert 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. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. 
employer to file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
(petition), concluding the record did not establish that the Beneficiary was qualified to occupy a 
specialty occupation position. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
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). While we conduct 
de nova review on appeal (Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015)), 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 a preemptive issue when compared with 
the Beneficiary's qualifications or whether the position is a specialty occupation. And we note the 
Director's decision does not contain any indication whether the LCA corresponds with the petition, 
nor does it reflect a determination whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Upon de 
novo review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the following analysis. 
The record appears to support a determination that the prevailing wage rate designated on the LCA 
was not correctly calculated based on the Petitioner's position requirements. While DOL certifies the 
LCA, 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 ofSimeio 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-1 B petition. 
Without knowing the answer to that question, we cannot issue an ultimate eligibility determination 
because a position that satisfies all other H-1 B requirements but is one in which the organization would 
not pay the appropriate wage cannot be approved. Those conditions violate section 212(n)(l) of the 
Act and the intent to protect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers. 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, the Director should first make a determination on whether 
the Petitioner included the correct wage rate on the LCA, and that it therefore corresponds to and 
supports this H-1 B petition. 
The Petitioner indicated the Beneficiary would optimize the performance ofprocessing and production 
of their product. Here, the Petitioner obtained an LCA certified under the SOC code 17-2112.03, 
relating to Manufacturing Engineers at a Level I prevailing wage rate. While it appears the Petitioner 
selected the most appropriate SOC code, what is unclear from the present record is whether it properly 
designated the prevailing wage at a Level I wage rate. We specifically question whether the number 
of years of experience the Petitioner required for the position (i.e., 7-10 years) warrants a Level I wage 
rate designation. 
DOL guidance provides a five-step process for determining the proper wage level for the offered 
position. Step two of this process compares the experience described in the Occupational Information 
Network Job Zone to the requirements for the offered position. Manufacturing Engineers are classified 
in Job Zone 4 with a Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating of"7.0 < 8.0." This SVP rating 
means that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of specific vocational 
training. A bachelor's degree expends two years, permitting the Petitioner to require up to and 
including two years of experience as the position's prerequisite before it must increase the wage level. 
For a position classified in Job Zone 4, if an employer requires a bachelor's degree and more than two 
years of work experience, a wage level increase is required as follows: 
Amount of Experience Experience and SVP Range Wage Level 
Requirement 
Up to and including two years Less than the experience and SVP No increase 
More than two years and up to 
three years Low end of the experience and SVP One level increase 
More than three years and up to 
four years High end of the experience and SVP Two level increase 
More than four years Greater than the experience and SVP Three level increase 
See the DOL guidance pp. 9-10. The Petitioner required a bachelor's degree and "7-10 years of 
technical experience" which is greater than the SVP range. This would appear to necessitate raising 
2 
the wage level by three increments to a Level IV wage rate. The Petitioner indicated it would pay the 
Beneficiary within a Level I wage rate annually with $75,000. However, it appears as though the 
Petitioner should have designated a Level IV wage rate to compensate him with at least $109,075, 
resulting in a significant pay discrepancy when compared to other employees with similar duties, 
experience, and qualifications. 1 As such, it appears as though the Petitioner required experience at 
DOL's designated fully competent level, while only compensating its foreign worker personnel with 
the designated entry-level wage. 
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 Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
For additional information, see OFLC Wage Search, Foreign Labor Application Gateway (Feb. 6, 2025), 
https: //flag.dol. gov /wage-data/wage-search. 
3 
1