remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17016863 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 18, 2021 
The Petitioner, an information technology and software development company, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimrnigrant classification for specialty occupations . See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(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 California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, and the Petitioner filed a timely appeal. After the 
Director's decision was issued, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided Innova Sols., 
Inc. v. Baran, 983 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 2020) . Because the analysis utilized by the Director in arriving 
at her conclusion on the specialty-occupation issue appears impacted by that decision, it is appropriate 
to remand the matter for the Director to consider the question anew . 
As the Director reconsiders the specialty-occupation issue, she may wish to consider whether it is 
necessary for the Petitioner to clarify the duties of the proffered position . The record contains three 
significantly different versions of the proffered position's duties, 1 which obfuscates the actual 
substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary. 2 
1 The Petitioner provided an initial set of duties, and then an expanded list of duties in response to the Director 's request 
for evidence (RFE). In addition , the Petitioner submitted an "Interview Summary Questionnaire for Specialty Occupation 
Expert Opinion Letter," containing an additional 27 duties, which were provided by the Petitioner's operations manager. 
The additional 27 duties include "coordinating with interface for the application based on design documents with assigned 
team," "focusing on new code enhancements and training them accordingly with individual or teams," "collaborate with 
function al team members to assist in identifying process changes, learning future state processes and system functionality , 
and education end users on their new roles and business processes ," and "supporting information technology in a complex 
business environment ," among 23 others. Most of these duties are vaguely worded and create ambiguity about the 
substantive nature of the position . 
2 It is the substantive nature of that work that determines ( 1) the normal minimum educational requirement for entry into 
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; 
As the Ninth Circuit's Innova Sols., Inc. decision appears to affect the Director's analysis of the 
specialty occupation issue and the Petitioner was not previously accorded the opportunity to address 
the above discrepancies, we will remand the record for farther review of these issues. The Director 
may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination. As such, we 
express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. Accordingly, the 
following order shall be issued. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for farther 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
( 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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
2