remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9301121 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 2, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
"implementation 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 . § l 10l(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 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 denying the petition . 
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, although the Director 
references a discussion of the proffered position and states that the Petitioner has "not shown that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation," the decision does not include any such discussion. 
The Director should, therefore, determine whether the Petitioner has 1) sufficiently described the 
duties of the proffered position 1 and 2) otherwise established that the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. If the Director determines that the position does not qualify as a specialty occupation, she 
must provide a sufficient explanation for her conclusion. 
If the Director determines that the position does qualify as a specialty occupation, she should then 
consider whether the Beneficiary is qualified. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz As socs., 19 I&N Dec . 55 8, 
1 For example, the Petitioner provided a generalized list of job duties without explaining how duties such as onboarding 
key clients projects, describing and recommending communication protocols , aligning sales and implementation, 
managing client expectations, providing clients with strategic business recommendations , and coordinating resources of 
clients' third-party providers actually require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. 
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]."). 
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. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2