remanded H-1B Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 22, 2025 In Re: 36063276 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary employment under the H-lB nonimrnigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to file 
a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 California Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
(petition), concluding the record did not establish that the Beneficiary was qualified to occupy the 
offered position. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. The Petitioner bears 
the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the 
Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we 
will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
Although we conduct de nova review on appeal, a threshold matter must be resolved before we may 
address the merits of the Director's decision and the Petitioner's appeal. Specifically, a beneficiary's 
credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a specialty 
occupation. We are required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the 
offered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation, and second, whether the 
Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf 
Matter ofMichael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's 
background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to 
employ him falls within [a specialty occupation].") . 
We note within the Director's decision they indicated the position did not qualify as a specialty 
occupation. The Director stated: 
When users makes a decision for eligibility as an H-1 B nonimmigrant, it first 
determines whether the position is a specialty occupation. If users determines that 
the position is not a specialty occupation, it need not determine whether the beneficiary 
is qualified for the position. As discussed above, you have not shown that the proffered 
position is a specialty occupation. However, as a separate and independent eligibility 
issue, you have not shown that the beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the 
proffered position. 
Even though the decision reflects the Director presented analysis relating to whether the position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation, and that they made a determination on that issue, the decision 
notice does not contain any such analysis. Because the specialty occupation issue must be resolved 
before the Beneficiary's qualifications, we will remand the matter for the Director to make that 
determination, especially focusing on whether the position would qualify as a specialty occupation as 
the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook reflects a common degree field for 
this occupation is a bachelor's-level degree in business. This generalized requirement does not appear 
to satisfy the statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. But this issue was not 
addressed in the below decision and the record is not developed on that subject. 
Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter to consider the specialty 
occupation issue and other issues and enter a new decision. The Director may request any additional 
evidence considered pertinent to the new determination and any other issue. As such, we express no 
opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2