remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF A-s-D DATE: SEPT. 18, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a.__ ___________________ ....,.... ___ seeks to extend the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as a "DC client technology specialist" 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. § 110l(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 California Service Center denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, concluding that the record did not establish the proffered position qualified as a specialty 
occupation. The Petitioner appealed the matter alleging an error on the Director's part. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(19) states that the Director will notify a petitioner in writing of 
a decision made on a benefit request. Further, 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i) states that when denying a 
petition, the Director shall explain in writing the specific reasons for denial. The Director's decision 
in the record appears to have been improperly prepared. Specifically, we observe the following errors: 
(1) the Director's description of the Petitioner's business is incorrect; (2) the Petitioner provided a 
more detailed job description when responding to the request for evidence (RFE) even though the 
denial indicated otherwise; (3) the Director recounted a set of qualifying degree concentrations that 
the Petitioner did not offer; (4) the denial contains incorrect information regarding U.S. Department 
of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook; and (5) the decision incorrectly states that the Petitioner 
did not offer evidence to demonstrate eligibility under the fust prong of the second criterion, even 
though the RFE contained such material. The petition will be remanded to the Director for review and 
entry of a new decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter of A-S-OID # 4643895 (AAO Sept. 18, 2019)