sustained H-1B Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8803925 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 29, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "architectural designer I" under the 
H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the petition is supported by a certified labor condition application (LCA) 1 that 
corresponds with the proffered position described in the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
the Director erred and it has established eligibility for this benefit. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence.2 The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in 
this matter de novo. 3 Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
On the certified LCA submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner designated the proposed 
position as a Standard Occupation Classification code 17-1011 "Architects , Except Landscape and 
Naval" occupation at a Level I wage. The Petitioner described the duties of an architect, including 
that the Beneficiary in the proposed position will mentor other less experienced team members. In 
response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner explained less experienced team 
members refers to individuals who had just started working within the company in architectural 
designer I positions and interns. The Director concluded that mentoring individuals in a parallel 
position conflicts with the job duties of a Level I wage employee. 
1 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of either 
the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment " or the actual wage paid by the employer 
to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. Section 2 l 2(n)(l) 
of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a) . 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofCha wathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc ., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
While the Department of Labor (DOL) is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are 
submitted to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), DOL regulations note that the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits branch, USCIS) is the 
department responsible for determining whether the content of an LCA filed for a particular Form 
1-129 actually supports that petition. 4 See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b), which states, in pertinent part 
( emphasis added): 
For H-lB visas ... DHS accepts the employer's petition (DHS Form 1-129) with the 
DOL-certified LCA attached. In doing so, the DHS determines whether the petition is 
supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, whether the occupation 
named in the [LCA] is a specialty occupation or whether the individual is a fashion 
model of distinguished merit and ability, and whether the qualifications of the 
nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements for H-1 B visa classification. 
The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that the LCA actually supports 
the H-lB petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary. 
Here, the Petitioner requires a bachelor's degree in architecture to perform the duties of the proposed 
position and does not include an experience requirement. However, mentoring other less experienced 
team members, even in a similar position, does not necessarily require more than two years of 
experience in the position 5 and, as described, does not include the supervision of the team members. 6 
The Director's conclusion to the contrary is in error. We conclude that the record demonstrates that, 
more likely than not, the wage designated on the certified LCA is commensurate with this specific 
position and that the certified LCA supports the position described in the petition. We also conclude 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation and that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the 
duties of this occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
4 The LCA serves as the critical mechanism for enforcing section 212(n)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(l). See Labor 
Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Nonimmigrants on H-lB Visas in Specialty Occupations 
and as Fashion Models; Labor Certification Process for Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States, 65 Fed. 
Reg. 80,110, 80,110-11 (proposed Dec. 20, 2000) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 655-56) (indicating that the wage 
protections in the Act seek "to protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate any economic incentive or advantage in hiring 
temporary foreign workers" and that this "process of protecting U.S. workers begins with [the filing of an LCA] with 
[DOL]."). 
5 Generally, a Job Zone Four position that requires more than two years of experience requires that the LCA reflect that 
experience in a higher wage level than a wage Level I in order to correspond to the petition. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, 
Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 
2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf 
6 More likely than not, mentoring other team members, as described, is not the equivalent of supervising other team 
members, thus also would not require an increase in wage level. See id. 
2