sustained H-1B Case: Engineering

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
lIardn of ped privacy 
uc COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: LIN 04 080 52929 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 i~ 3 ZW)6 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10l(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
*2d"* 
A/n Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals offig 
LIN 04 080 52929 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director of the service center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. The petition will be 
approved. 
The petitioner is a software development and softwarelengineering consulting firm that seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as a design engineer. The petitioner, therefore, endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a 
nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 101 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1 101 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the petitioner failed to establish that the proposed position qualifies 
as a specialty occupation. On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an occupation 
that requires: 
(A) 
 theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and 
(B) 
 attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) 
as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2@)(4)(iii)(A), to qualifL as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of the 
following criteria: 
(I) 
 A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement 
for entry into the particular position; 
(2) 
 The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its particular position is 
so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree; 
(3) 
 The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) 
 The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge required 
to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or 
higher degree. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is 
directly related to the proffered position. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
LIN 04 080 52929 
Page 3 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The petitioner is seelung the beneficiary's services as a design engineer. Evidence of the beneficiary's duties 
includes: the Form 1-129; the attachments accompanying the Form 1-129; the petitioner's support letter; and 
the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the beneficiary 
would perform duties that entail: designing and developing engine castings such as engine blocks, cylinder 
heads and pistons; and engineering design change implementation; acting as technical coordinator of offshore 
projects; modeling and malung technical contributions including recommendations for improving current 
products and enhancing the product development life cycle; developing, installing, integrating, and providing 
training for advanced computer-aided design (CAD) and engineering and manufacturing software 
applications; performing dimensional design and modeling projects; analyzing product requirements and 
developing tools for specific customer needs; conducting feasibility studies in the CAD system, generating 
product definitions that satisfy the packaging envelope and structural load path requirements using CAD 
systems; interpreting concepts and customer requirements, and operational and structural performance 
requirements which are necessary to develop initial product concepts; and reviewing technical specifications 
and documents received from customers and using the CAD system to generate a three-dimensional surface 
and solid model while adhering to all specifications and requirements. The petitioner stated that the 
beneficiary must be knowledgeable in mechanisms, assemblies, sub-assemblies, and machinery and 
equipment components; machine design, theory of machines, and load conditions; static and dynamic 
analysis; and the interface between mechanical components, electronic gadgets, electrical power inputs, 
thermal conditions, and materials used for components. For the proposed position, the petitioner requires a 
baccalaureate degree, or its equivalent, in engineering or a related field. 
The director denied the petition, stating that the petitioner is a consulting firm providing software 
development and softwarelengineering consulting to businesses; that the beneficiary will provide services to 
the petitioner's clients; that Defensor vs. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384 (5" Cir. 2000) indicates that the petitioner 
must show that the entities ultimately employing the alien must require at least a baccalaureate degree, or its 
equivalent, for all employees in the proposed position; and that absent a contract the director was unable to 
conclude that the beneficiary would perform the duties of a specialty occupation. The director found that the 
petitioner satisfied none of the criteria under 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, counsel submits a September 10, 2004 letter from the petitioner. The letter states that the 
beneficiary will work at the petitioner's headquarters in Birmingham Farms, Michigan, and that the 
headquarters has an in-house design center which is located near the automobile industry. The petitioner 
maintains that the beneficiary, who is now leading an offshore team of engineers in order to coordinate 
projects, will serve as technical coordinator of offshore projects. The petitioner states the following about the 
beneficiary's employment: 
[The beneficiary] may be working for some of our clients. While we may require [him] to 
work on-site for specific projects from time to time for clients, the majority of his work will 
be done in-house at our design center. 
LIN 04 080 52929 
Page 4 
Please be advised that the petitioner is not an "employment agency[.]" We are a full[- 
]service engineering and designJconsulting firm. We always maintain control over our 
employees and have sole authority to hirelfire and make all personnel decisions (including 
payment of wages) regarding their employment. We conduct periodic performance reviews 
and have ultimate control over their work product. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established one of the four criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
9 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
To satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), the petitioner must establish that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. On 
appeal, the petitioner states that the proposed position involves designing and developing engine castings such 
as engine blocks, cylinder heads and pistons; and engineering design change implementation; using 
ProIEngineer software for modeling and designing complex castings, forgings, plastic components, and sheet 
metal components, reverse engineering and large assembly management with top down design approach; 
performing ASME Y14.5 drafting standards and tolerance stack up analysis using geometric dimensioning 
and tolerances; and performing geometric dimensioning and tolerances as per ASME standards. As shown by 
the evidence in the record, the proposed duties resemble those of a mechanical engneer as that occupation is 
depicted in the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (the Handbook), and the Handbook 
explains that almost all entry-level engineering jobs require a bachelor's degree in engineering. 
The AAO finds that the record reflects that the beneficiary will provide services as a design engmeer, and will 
primarily provide these services from the petitioner's headquarters. The petitioner's June 11, 2004 and 
September 10, 2004 letters establish that the beneficiary will provide most design engineer services from the 
petitioner's headquarters in Birmingham Farms, Michigan, and that the petitioner is not an employment 
agency. Accordingly, the petitioner establishes that it will be the beneficiary's ultimate employer and that the 
proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation under the first criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The record contains evidence that the beneficiary is qualified for the proposed position. The record reflects 
that the beneficiary holds a bachelor of technology degree in mechanical engineering from an institution in 
India, and that the educational evaluation from Trustforte Corporation states that the beneficiary's degree is 
the equivalent of a bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering from an accredited U.S. college or 
university. Based on this evidence, the beneficiary qualifies for the proposed position. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. 
The petitioner has sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is sustained. The petition is approved.