remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-C-B- CO. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 20, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a brewing , selling, and shipping company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as an "incident and problem management specialist" 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)(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 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 submitted a broad 
description of the proposed duties. For example, several of the duties appear to paraphrase the duties 
outlined in the Department of Labor's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report 
for a sub-category of the "Computer Occupations, All Others" occupation; specifically , the O*NET 
summary report on the "Information Technology Project Managers" Standard Occupational 
Classification code 15-1199.09. Additionally , the Petitioner's allocation of the Beneficiary's time 
spent on those duties does not total 100 percent. Further, the Petitioner's description of the proposed 
position does not provide the necessary insight into the Beneficiary's day-to-day tasks, so that we may 
ascertain the level of specific knowledge that is required to perform those duties. Without a more 
Matter of M-C-B- Co. 
meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence sufficiently concrete and informative to 
demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty occupation's level of knowledge in a 
specific specialty. That is, the record does not adequately communicate (1) the actual work that the 
Beneficiary would perform; (2) the complexity, uniqueness, or specialization of the tasks; and (3) the 
correlation between that work and a need for a particular level of education and knowledge. 
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 
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. 
Cite as Matter of M-C-B- Co., ID# 5894044 (AAO Sept. 20, 2019) 
2