remanded H-1B Case: Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9449151 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-18) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 26, 2020 
The Petitioner, a technology-based business solutions organization, seeks to employ the Beneficiary 
temporarily as a "business development specialist" under the H-18 nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations.1 The H-18 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 Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 
concluding that the record did not establish that the proffered position qualified as a specialty 
occupation. Throughout the decision, the Director considered the Petitioner's degree requirements 
detrimental to their eligibility. The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden 
of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence.2 We review the questions in 
this matter de nova. 3 
While we conduct de nova review on appeal, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case 
because the Director's decision appears insufficient for review. As noted, the Director concluded that 
the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. However, it appears the Petitioner provided 
additional information relating to its position prerequisites within its response to the request for 
additional evidence (RFE) that the Director did not factor into the decision. The Director should 
consider these additional requirements to determine if they mitigate the previously stated 
shortcomings. 
Within that same decision, the Director may wish to evaluate whether the changes to the additional 
information relating to its position prerequisites in the RFE response constituted a material change to 
the petition. We note that the Petitioner made those additions in response to the RFE where the 
Director specifically identified a shortcoming in that area. 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Chri sta's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Subsequent to the Director's above review, if she decides in the Petitioner's favor (i.e., the 
organization required a degree in a specific specialty and the Director decides the new position 
requirements in the RFE response did not constitute a material change), she may wish to analyze 
whether the wage level specified on the labor condition application was correct. We note the Director 
may wish to consider that the organization required work experience (conceivably raising the 
prevailing wage to a Level 11) in addition to a significant number of duties that fall outside of the 
standard occupational classificational code specified on the labor condition application (e.g., in a 
human resources-related occupation; Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing, Technical 
and Scientific Products; and possibly the Statisticians occupational category relating to the types 
quantitative responsi bi I ities). 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to consider the above 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. 4 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4 On appeal, the Petitioner requests oral argument. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b)(1) provides that the requesting 
party must explain in writing why oral argument is necessary. Furthermore, USCIS has the sole authority to grant or deny 
a request for oral argument. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b)(2). In light of our decision to remand the matter to the Director, and 
as the written record of proceeding fully represents the facts and issues in this matter, the request for oral argument is 
denied. 
2