remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 19, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in information technology services, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "software engineer" 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 has not submitted 
sufficient evidence to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation because the 
record lacks sufficient evidence of the actual work that the Beneficiary will perform for the end-client. 
The Petitioner indicated that it has a contract with a vendor who in turn will provide services to an end­
client The record does not provide the contracts between the three parties. In addition, the Petitioner 
must establish the specific duties to be performed for the end-client and the duration of the project. 
Further, the letter from the vendor stated that the position with the end-client requires "5+ years of 
extensive software development experience ." This requirement of experience undermines the 
Matter of V- Inc. 
information submitted on the Labor Condition Application that categorized the proffered position as 
a Level I wage which is for an entry-level position. 
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 ofV-Inc., ID# 5631095 (AAO Sept. 19, 2019) 
2