remanded H-1B Case: Financial Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9185180 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 21, 2020 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in multi-media financial information services, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a "product analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(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 Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record does not 
establish that the Beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that the Director erred in the decision . 
While we conduct de nova review on appeal, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case 
because the Director's decision is insufficient for review. Specifically, the Director is 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 nonimmigrant 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 presently constituted, 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) . We note the Petitioner repeatedly asserts 
that the educational requirement for the proffered position is a bachelor's degree "in a relevant field," 
or the equivalent, and has not specified any specific specialty or discipline associated with the degree. 
A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of 
study that relates directly to the position in question. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N 
Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to consider the specialty occupation issue 
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