sustained H-1B

sustained H-1B Case: Mechanical Engineering

๐Ÿ“… Date unknown ๐Ÿ‘ค Company ๐Ÿ“‚ Mechanical Engineering

Decision Summary

The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the proffered position of mechanical engineer qualified as a specialty occupation. The director's denial was based on the position not being a specialty occupation, but the AAO found the petitioner successfully established the first criterion by demonstrating that a bachelor's degree is the normal minimum requirement for the position, citing the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook.

Criteria Discussed

8 C.F.R. ยง 214.2(H)(4)(Iii)(A)(1)

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clear!? unwarfanted 
invasion of personal psivacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. ยง 1 lOl(a)(lS)(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. 
kRe%~~<~ Administrative Appea s Office 
WAC 03 191 50654 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director 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 manufacturer of activated carbon that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a mechanical 
engineer. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty 
occupation pursuant to section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 9 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, 
counsel submits a brief. 
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(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify 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. 
$ 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 
WAC 03 191 50654 
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 seeking the beneficiary's services as a mechanical engineer. Evidence of the beneficiary's 
duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's June 10, 2003 letter in support of the petition; and the 
petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the beneficiary 
would perform duties that entail: being in charge of the two horizontal furnaces of regenerated spent 
carbon; adjusting the activation process to ensure that pores of the required size for a particular application 
are developed; sending spent and virgin carbon samples to outside labs for analysis; separating batches 
depending on analysis; setting up furnace conditions for correct temperatures, air volumes and other 
conditions, including feed rate and discharge rate depending on the spent carbon; monitoring production 
reports to determine whether each shift is giving the correct production; carrying out lab analyses for the 
carbon coming out from the two furnaces for butane absorption, iodine absorption, nitrogen, surface area 
analysis, bulk density, pH, ash, volatile matters and size distribution; preparing maintenance schedule 
programs for both furnaces, including furnace activation tube, cracks, plate thickness, bearing replacement, 
all gear boxes, routing maintenance, regular check-ups for feed rate and discharge systems and bucket 
elevators, belt elevators, wet scrubber and furnace computer system; calculating monthly profitability by 
analyzing employee's wages, gas consumption, electricity bills, chemical usage, and maintenance costs; 
carrying out research and development using his previous experience to increase output from both furnaces 
to provide virgin and regenerated carbon and reduce unnecessary expenses; meeting with customers to 
check their satisfaction including an assessment of the quality of their regenerated carbon; attending to the 
maintenance of furnace and breakdowns; and designing production processes according to the different 
types of raw materials. The petitioner stated that a qualified candidate for the job would possess a 
bachelor's degree in engineering. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation because the petitioner did not 
establish there is a bona fide position that meets the requirements of a specialty occupation. The director 
found further that the petitioner failed to establish any of the criteria found at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, counsel states that the duties of the proffered position are those described by the Department of 
Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) for engineers. Counsel also states that the director 
misunderstood the nature of the petitioner's business, and therefore, came to an incorrect conclusion that a bona 
fide position may not exist. Counsel states that the petitioner has met at least one of the four criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. !j 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established one of the four criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
!j 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2 (h)(4)(iii)(A)(I): a baccalaureate or higher degree or 
its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria include: whether the Handbook reports that 
the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum 
WAC 03 191 50654 
Page 4 
entry requirement; and whether letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such 
firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 
1 15 1, 1 165 (D.Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Suva, 7 12 F. Supp. 1095, 1 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational 
requirements of particular occupations. On appeal, counsel provides additional information about the nature 
of the petitioner's business. The AAO does not concur with the director that the petitioner did not establish 
that a credible employment offer consistent with the needs of the petitioner's organization existed. The 
director's remarks on this issue are withdrawn. 
The duties of the proffered position are those of a mechanical engineer. As described in the Handbook, "A 
bachelor's degree in engineering is required for almost all entry-level engineering jobs." The proffered 
position is, therefore, a specialty occupation. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
1361. The petitioner has sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is sustained. The petition is approved. 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Use this winning precedent in your petition

MeritDraft analyzes sustained AAO decisions like this one to generate petition arguments that mirror what actually gets approved.

Build Your Winning Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.