remanded H-1B Case: Food Processing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9687715 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 24, 2020 
The Petitioner, a food processing and packaging company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "field service consultant" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(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 California 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 submits 
additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
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 l&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]."). 
In this matter, the Director should first determine whether the Petitioner has sufficiently described the 
duties of the proffered position to establish that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. For 
example, the Petitioner provided a generalized list of job duties and did not explain how duties such 
as overseeing the successful installation, maintenance, and upgrade of its technologies to meet client 
needs actually require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. 
Only if the Director determines that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation should she then 
consider whether the Beneficiary is qualified. 
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. 
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