remanded H-1B Case: Business Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21985310 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition forNonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 21, 2022 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101 (a)(15)(HXi)(b), 8 U .S.C. 
§ 1101 (a)(15XH)(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 Texas Service 
Center Director denied the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker , concluding that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
We conduct de nova review on appeal, but 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 
proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation, and second, whether the 
Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the non immigrant visa petition was filed. Cf 
Matter of Michael 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]."). 
As presented, the record does not demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
documentation from a probative, authoritative source to substantiate its assertion regarding the 
minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Specifically, the Petitioner did not clearly 
state the position's degree requirements and only implied that they required a bachelor's degree in 
business administration when discussing the Beneficiary's degree equivalency. Additionally, the 
duties are overly general and do not adequately convey the substantive work that the Beneficiary will 
perform on a day-to-day basis. 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director so they may consider the specialty occupation 
issue and issue a decision on the matter. The Director may request any additional evidence considered 
pertinent to the new determination. 
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