remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9016524 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 28, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "project lead" under the H-IB 
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 know ledge 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 California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de novo,2 but a 
threshold matter must be resolved before we may address the merits of the Director's decision and the 
Petitioner's appeal. Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director for further review of the 
record and a new decision . 
I. ANALYSIS 
On the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker, the Petitioner, located in! I Georgia, 
indicated that the Beneficiary will work offsite. On the labor condition application (LCA) 3 submitted 
in support of the H-IB petition, the Petitioner identified the Beneficiary's work location as an address 
inl I Illinois, the end-client's facility. The record includes a lengthy but broad overview 
of the proposed position. Most of the description refers to the technology tools and environments the 
Beneficiary will work with but does not describe the Beneficiary's actual tasks. We observe that 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
3 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of either 
the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment " or the actual wage paid by the employer 
to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. Section 212(n)(l) 
of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
although the Petitioner identifies the proposed position as a "project lead," the duties appear to relate 
to performing web service validation, automating web services and functionalities, and computing test 
execution, test planning, and test automation. The Petitioner also includes a section of duties that 
describe what the Beneficiary will be expected to understand about a particular project, but does not 
relate that understanding to particular duties performed for the project. The description, overall, is not 
sufficiently comprehensible so that we may asce1iain the occupation in which the Petitioner will 
employ the Beneficiaiy. 
There are technology occupations that may be performed with a general degree ( either at the bachelor 
or associate's level) and certifications or undefined experience in a particular program or third-party 
software. There are also technology occupations that may require special skills, specific certifications, 
advanced knowledge, or that incorporate the duties of more than one occupation. Here, the duties 
suggest that the individual in the position must have familiarity with several third-party technology 
tools, software, and programming languages, however, the description is not sufficiently detailed to 
ascertain the nature and level of responsibility of the proposed position, including whether the duties 
as generally described correspond to the occupation designated on the LCA. The record does not 
establish the substantive nature of the proffered position or demonstrate that performing the duties 
described would require the theoretical and practical application of highly specialized knowledge and 
the attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. See section 
214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation). 
The record does not include sufficient evidence to establish that the proffered position requires a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent; and a beneficiary's credentials 
to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a specialty occupation. Thus, 
until the record includes sufficient evidence establishing the proposed position is a specialty 
occupation, an analysis of the Beneficiary's qualifications is premature. Although there are significant 
insufficiencies in the information regarding the Beneficiary's qualifications, it is not possible to 
conclude that the Beneficiary is unqualified to perform the non-H-lB caliber position described in the 
current record. 
II. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner was not previously accorded the opportunity to address the deficiencies and 
inconsistencies in the record discussed above, we will remand the record for fu1iher 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 the ently of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2