remanded H-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 10553210 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 14, 2020 
The Petitioner, a computer software development and services company, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C . § 110l(a)(l5)(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 does not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 
While we conduct de novo review on appeal, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case. We 
therefore are withdrawing the Director's decision and remanding the matter for further review of the 
record and issuance of a new decision. 
The Director must 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. 1 On the LCA , the Petitioner designated 
the proffered position under the occupational category for "Engineers , All Other" (specifically 
"Validation Engineers"), corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 17-
1 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 "co rresponds with" the 
content of the H-lB petition . 
2199.02. 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. 
The Director should compare the job descriptions the Petitioner and the end-client 3 provided to the 
complete list of "tasks" provided for in O*NET to determine whether the Petitioner selected the most 
appropriate SOC code. The DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" 4 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, validation engineers generally: 
Design or plan protocols for equipment or processes to produce products meeting 
internal and external purity, safety, and quality requirements. 
O*NET provides a list of 21 tasks related to the occupation. While we acknowledge that some of the 
listed tasks may relate to more than one occupation, it appears that the O*NET entry for Software 
Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers (SOC code 15-1199.01) is more closely aligned with the 
proffered position. O*NET provides the following general summary, along with a list of specific tasks: 
Develop and execute software test plans in order to identify software problems and their 
causes. 
The Director should then determine the actual requirements of the position as reflected in the record. 
For example, according to the two job postings the Petitioner provided from its website for the position 
of "validation engineer," 5 the requirements are a "Masters or foreign equivalent in CS, Technology, 
2 See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/17-2 l 99.02 
3 As recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be performed for entities other than the 
petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. The court held that the former Immigration and 
Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence 
that a proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using 
the beneficiary's services. Id. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and educational level 
of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform that particular work. 
4 U.S. Dep't of Labor. Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/ NPWHC_Guidance_Revised 
_l 1_2009.pdf. 
5 The Petitioner submitted two additional postings, one for a "validation analyst" and one for a '"QA analyst." The 
Petitioner has not established that these positions are the same as, or similar to, the proffered position. 
2 
CIS, MIS, Engineering (Any) or any related field" (verbatim). In addition, both postings state "[m]ust 
be able to travel/relocate to various client sites throughout the U.S." 6 Finally, one of the postings also 
requires two years of experience. The actual minimum requirement of a master's level degree, as 
opposed to the claimed bachelor's level degree, appears to be supported by the Petitioner's explanation 
regarding the Beneficiary's qualifications for the position, which relies on many of the Beneficiary's 
master's level courses to perform the corresponding duties. It is also unclear whether the position 
requires specific knowledge related to the end-client's business. Once the Director determines the 
actual minimum requirements of the position, she should then determine whether the Petitioner 
selected the correct wage level. 
For all of the reasons above, the Director should determine whether the record satisfies the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(I), which requires a petitioner to obtain certification from DOL that it 
has filed an LCA "in the occupational specialty in which the alien( s) will be employed" and if the 
petition is supported by an LCA that corresponds to the petition under 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b ). 
If the Director concludes that the Petitioner has satisfied all of the above, she should then determine 
whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation based upon the information in the record. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
6 We note that according to DOL guidance, the master's level degree and travel requirement would each require a one 
step increase in the wage level. 
3