remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-D-, INC . 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 18, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "business 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. 
§ 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
meet the itinerary requirements as described in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) . 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that it fully complied with the 
itinerary requirement and the petition should be approved. 
Upon de nova review, the decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the analysis below and for the entry of a new decision. 
I. ITINERARY REQUIREMENT 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) states, in pertinent part: 
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be 
performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary 
with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as 
provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location 
on the Form 1-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner contends that it provided information pertaining to the Beneficiary's place 
and dates of employment in the record. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would be employed 
primarily at the end-client's office location through December 31, 2020 and explained that the second end­
client location, along with its own headquarters location, were listed for the Beneficiary to attend 
Matter of S-M-, Inc. 
occasional meetings and training courses. We find the record sufficient to satisfy the itinerary requirement 
found at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B). As such, we withdraw the Director's decision on this matter. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
However, the record of proceedings is not currently sufficient to establish that the proffered position 
is a specialty occupation. As the Director did not address this issue, we will remand the matter for 
further development of the record on the proffered position's classification as a specialty occupation. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
As recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. The 
court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the 
2 
Matter of S-M-, Inc. 
statute and regulations as requiring the pet1t10ner to produce evidence that a proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the 
beneficiary's services. Id. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and 
educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform 
that particular work. 
Here, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will perform his duties primarily at the end-client site 
in Pennsylvania for I ~ end-client), pursuant to a direct Master Services 
Agreement (MSA) between the Petitioner and the end-client. A crucial aspect of this matter is whether 
the Petitioner has sufficiently described the duties of the proffered position such that we may discern 
the nature of the position and whether the position actually requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained through at least a baccalaureate degree 
in a specific discipline. The Director should determine whether the provided descriptions of the 
Beneficiary's duties provide the specificity and detail necessary to support the Petitioner's contention 
that the position is a specialty occupation. In establishing such a position as a specialty occupation, 
the description of the proffered position must include sufficient details to substantiate that the 
Petitioner has H-1 B caliber work for the Beneficiary. 
Without a meaningful job description, we cannot determine (1) the actual work that the Beneficiary 
would perform on a day-to-day basis; (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks; 
and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level education of highly 
specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
Similarly, it is the substantive nature of the work that determines (1) the normal minimum educational 
requirement for the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which 
are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, 
under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered 
position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong of criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification for 
a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and 
( 5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
As the Director did not address this issue, we will remand the matter for further development of the 
record regarding the proffered position's status as a specialty occupation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner was not previously accorded the opportunity to address the above, we will remand 
the record for further review of these issues. The Director may request any additional evidence 
considered pertinent to the new determination. 
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 S-M-, Inc., ID# 4839016 (AAO Sept. 18, 2019) 
3