remanded H-1B Case: Self-Driving Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17202086 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 26, 2021 
The Petitioner, a self-driving technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"product manager" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
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 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 did not 
establish that the Beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that the Director erred in the decision and submits a brief. 
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 question whether the Department of Labor 
(DOL) ETA Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA), 
properly corresponds with and supports the petition, as required.1 As this particular record currently 
stands, we cannot provide an accurate analysis as to whether the proffered position is in fact a specialty 
occupation, because the duties as described by the Petitioner appear to more properly correspond to 
those of positions located within a different occupational category than the one designated by the 
Petitioner. This in turn raises significant questions as to the actual, substantive nature of the position, 
and until those questions are resolved we cannot render a decision on the specialty-occupation issue. 
We therefore will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further review of the 
record and issuance of a new decision. 
1 While the 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-1B petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) 
("DHS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition . .. . "). 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 detenninations. 
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-1B petition . 
On the LCA, the Petitioner designated the proffered position as being located within the "Management 
Analysts" occupational category, corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 
13-1111.2 The Petitioner selected a Level II wage as corresponding to the job requirements, necessary 
experience, education, special skills, and other requirements of the proffered position. 
However, when we compare the proposed duties of the proffered position to those provided in the 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET), we question whether the Petitioner selected the 
appropriate SOC code for the proffered position. The DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance" (DOL Guidance) provides clear guidance for selecting the most relevant O*NET 
occupational code classification, as follows: 
In determining the nature of the job offer, the first order is to review the requirements 
of the employer's job offer and determine the appropriate occupational classification. 
The O*NET description that corresponds to the employer's job offer shall be used to 
identify the appropriate occupational classification . . . . If the employer's job 
opportunity has worker requirements described in a combination of O*NET 
occupations, the NPWHC should default directly to the relevant O*NET-SOC 
occupational code for the highest paying occupation. For example, if the employer's 
job offer is for an engineer-pilot, the NPWHC shall use the education, skill and 
experience levels for the higher paying occupation when making the wage level 
determination. 
According to O*NET, SOC 13-1111, "Management Analysts" generally: 
Conduct organizational studies and evaluations, design systems and procedures, 
conduct work simplification and measurement studies, and prepare operations and 
procedures manuals to assist management in operating more efficiently and 
effectively. 3 
However, the proffered position's job duties appear atypical to the scope of positions in the 
"Management Analysts" occupation. Examples of such duties include guiding engineering teams; 
making decisions and signing off on web applications and technical infrastructure flows; overseeing 
product rollouts; overseeing product collaboration between teams; developing rollout plans; creating 
technical plans; writing complex queries to pull metrics; instrument and visualize metrics into complex 
graphs and dashboards; creating specifications for software; and designing and launching products for 
web application. We question whether these job duties may be more consistent with other 
occupational categories that were available when the LCA was certified, such as "Information 
2 See O*NET Summary Report for "Management Analysts," https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-1111.00 (last 
visited Aug. 26, 2021). 
3 Id. 
2 
Technology Project Managers" (SOC 15-1199.09);4 "Software Developers, Applications" (SOC 15-
1132);5 and/or "Operations Research Analysts" (SOC 15-2031).6 
This confusion raises at least three issues in this case. Initially, if the Petitioner selected the incorrect 
SOC code on the LCA, we cannot provide a meaningful analysis as to whether a position as a specialty 
occupation. An analysis using an incorrect occupational code could result in an erroneous outcome, 
or one that does not properly assess the actual nature of the position in which the Beneficiary would 
engage. A related concern is how the educational requirements we consider may differ markedly from 
one occupational classification to the next. Finally, the Director may wish to consider whether the 
Level 11 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.7 
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, and 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, which, if adverse, shall be certified to 
us for review. 
4 See O*NET Online Archives Summary Report for "15-1199.09 - Information Technology Project Manager," 
https://www.onetonline.org/Archive_ONET-SOC_2010_ Taxonomy_09_2020/link/summary/15-1199.09 (last visited 
Aug. 26, 2021) 
5 See O*NET Online Archives Summary Report for "15-1132.00 - Software Developers, Applications," 
https://www.onetonline.org/Archive_ONET-SOC_2010_ Taxonomy_09_2020/link/summary/15-1132.00 (last visited 
Aug. 26, 2021) 
6 See O*NET Online Archives Summary Report for "15-2031.00 - Operations Research Analysts," 
https://www.onetonline.org/Archive_ONET-SOC_2010_ Taxonomy_09_2020/link/summary/15-2031.00 (last visited 
Aug. 26, 2021) 
7 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_11_2009.pdf. 
3