remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe: 8910555 
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 17, 2020 
The Petitioner, a provider of cloud-based network solutions, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "project manager" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. 1 
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. 2 
As presently constituted, the record does not demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. 3 For example, one of the primary pieces of evidence in the record is an O*NET 
summary report for "Information Technology Project Managers," listed as SOC code 15-1199.09. 
However, the O*NET summary report does not address the issue of whether a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty is required for positions falling under this occupational category. Rather, it states 
that "[m]ost of these occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not."4 
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. 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 0l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b ). 
2 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]."). 
3 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) . 
4 For additiona l infotmation , see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline .org/help/ 
online/svp. 
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