remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4707301 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 27, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"sales force [sic] developer" 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)(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 has not submitted 
sufficient evidence to establish the substantive nature of the work for which the Petitioner, mid-vendor , 
prime vendor, and end-client contracted for the Beneficiary to perform. Although the record contains 
a professional service agreement (PSA) and work order (WO) between the Petitioner and the 
mid-vendor , the WO, dated November 2017, states that the "expected assignment duration" would be 
"6 months plus [ e ]xtensions" and the record does not establish whether- and if so, how long- the 
parties extended the assignment beyond May 2018 . Additionally, the extent of the WO's description 
of the Beneficiary's "role" is "Salesforce Developer," without elaborating on the actual work for which 
the parties contracted the Beneficiary to perform. 
Similarly, although the record contains two-page document titled "Exhibit A to the Subcontractor 
Agreement between [the prime vendor] and [the mid-vendor]," the document is heavily redacted and 
provides little information beyond the name of the Beneficiary, the end-client, and a "start date" of 
"11/20/17," without specifying the duration of the assignment beyond the start date or the actual work 
for which the parties contracted the Beneficiary to perform. Furthermore, even if Exhibit A were not 
heavily redacted, the record does not contain the referenced Subcontractor Agreement between the 
prime vendor and the mid-vendor in order to establish the terms of the agreement. 
Moreover, although the record contains a WO to which the end-client is a party, referencing the 
Beneficiary, the extent of the end-client WO in the record does not identify any other entity that is a 
party to it. The WO excerpt is numbered "1/4," with the remainder of a bulleted list appearing at the 
top of a second, unnumbered page; however, the record does not contain pages from the WO numbered 
"2/4" through "4/4." Instead, the WO excerpt states that it is "entered into between the Buyer 
Organization and the Supplier Organization referenced below," although it excludes the majority of 
the WO excerpt's terms, including the identity of the supplier organization. Similar to the other 
documents, the WO excerpt does not establish the duration of the assignment. Furthermore, the WO 
excerpt references a "controlling master agreement between the parties" and states that "[i]f the terms 
of this [WO] conflict with the terms of the Master Agreement, the parties agree that the terms of the 
Master Agreement shall control." However, even if the WO excerpt provided the identity of the 
referenced supplier and the foll terms of the WO, the record does not contain the referenced 
"controlling master agreement" in order to establish its terms in order to determine which of the WO' s 
terms would be superseded by the master agreement's terms. In summation, the record does not 
establish the work for which the end-client contracted the Beneficiary to perform or the entity with 
which the end-client contracted for such work. 1 
Additionally, although we note that the record contains an opinion letter froml~--------~ 
a senior faculty member atl IUniversity,I I states that he reached his conclusion 
"after having conference [sic] call with [the Petitioner] to understand the hiring practices of their 
company and to understand the nature and complexity of their work." I I does not indicate 
that his opinion is based on evidence of the end-client's job requirements. 2 Furthermore, the record 
does not establish thatl ts opinion is based on sources recognized as authoritative. 
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 
1 We note that the record contains letters from the end-client, prime vendor, mid-vendor, and the Petitioner. However, the 
letters do not establish the terms of the contracts among the parties, in order to determine the substantive nature of the 
work for which the parties contracted the Beneficiary to perform. 
2 As recognized by the court in Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2000), where the work is to be 
performed for entities other than a petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. The court held 
that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the statute and regulations as requiring 
the petitioner 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. 
2 
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. 
3