remanded H-1B

remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

๐Ÿ“… Date unknown ๐Ÿ‘ค Company ๐Ÿ“‚ Information Technology

Decision Summary

The Director initially denied the petition, finding that the proffered position did not qualify as a specialty occupation. The matter was remanded because the petitioner submitted additional evidence on appeal which the Director had not yet reviewed. The AAO sent the case back for a new decision based on the complete record.

Criteria Discussed

Specialty Occupation

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9508077 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 13, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting and staffing company, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a "management analyst" 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. ยง 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 evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The Director 
also concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary will perform services 
in a specialty occupation for a requested period of intended employment. Upon de nova review, we 
will remand the matter for the entry of a new decision. 
The Petitioner submits additional evidence on appeal including letters from the vendor and the 
end-client, affidavits, an agreement between the end-client and the vendor, and a work order. The 
Petitioner asserts that the evidence submitted establishes eligibility . Because the Director has not yet 
addressed the additional evidence, we shall return the matter for the Director to consider the 
Petitioner's claim anew. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision. 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Draft your H-1B petition with AAO precedents

MeritDraft uses real AAO decisions to generate compliant petition arguments tailored to your evidence.

Sign Up Free →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.