remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF P- INC . DATE: SEPT. 11, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "full stack development lead" under the H-1 B nonirnrnigrant 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 
nonirnmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 
(Cornm'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). 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 P-Inc., ID# 4182398 (AAO Sept. 11, 2019)