remanded H-1B Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6759139 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 2, 2020 
The Petitioner, a management consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"technical consultant" under the H-IB 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-IB 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 Petitioner did 
not meet the itinerary requirements as described in 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) . 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that it fully complied with the 
itinerary requirement and the petition should be approved. 
Upon de nova review, the decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the analysis below and for the entry of a new decision. 
I. ITINERARY REQUIREMENT 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) states, in pertinent part : 
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be 
performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary 
with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS 
as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its 
location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this 
paragraph. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner proactively indicated at the time the petition was filed that the 
Beneficiary would work primarily at the end-client's physical location in Wisconsin, but would also 
travel on occasion to the Petitioner's headquarters location in California for meetings and corporate 
conferences as necessary. The Petitioner therefore noted both locations on the labor condition 
application and stated that the Beneficiary would be paid the applicable prevailing wage rate or higher 
at all times at each location. The Director found this insufficient and denied the petition because the 
Petitioner did not list the specific dates for which the Beneficiary will be performing services at either 
the Petitioner's office location or the end-client location. 
We disagree with the Director's decision. We find that the Petitioner's proactive explanation at the 
time of petition filing for the two locations is sufficient to satisfy the itinerary requirement found at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B). As such, we withdraw the Director's decision on this matter. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
However, the record of proceedings is not currently sufficient to establish that the proffered position 
is a specialty occupation. As the Director did not address this issue, we will remand the matter for 
further analysis of the record on the proffered position's classification as a specialty occupation. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
2 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
As recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. The 
court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the 
statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the 
beneficiary's services. Id. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and 
educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform 
that particular work. 
A crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has sufficiently described the duties of the 
proffered position such that we may discern the nature of the position and whether the position actually 
requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. Here, the Petitioner, which is located 
in California, stated that the Beneficiary will perform his duties primarily at the end-client site in 
Wisconsin forl !(end-client), pursuant to a direct Master Services Agreement (MSA) executed 
between the Petitioner and the end-client. 
We determine that the evidence is insufficient to establish that the proffered position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation. As recognized in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, it is necessary 
for the end-client to provide sufficient information regarding the proposed job duties to be performed 
at its location in order to properly ascertain the minimum educational requirements necessary to 
perform those duties. In other words, as the nurses in that case would provide services to the end-client 
hospitals and not to the petitioning staffing company, the Petitioner-provided job duties and alleged 
requirements to perform those duties were irrelevant to a specialty occupation determination. See id. 
Here, the record of proceedings does not provide sufficient information from the end-client regarding 
the project assignment or the specific job duties to be performed by the Beneficiary. While the 
Petitioner submitted its MSA with the end-client and a Statement of Work (SOW) covering the entire 
requested duration for HlB status, the SOW alone does not sufficiently outline the Beneficiary's role 
with the end-client. 
While the Petitioner submitted additional information pertaining to the Beneficiary's proffered duties, 
the record does not contain a detailed description explaining what particular duties the Beneficiary in 
relation to the end-client's project or even from the end-client itself. Without a meaningful job 
description, we cannot determine (1) the actual work that the Beneficiary would perform on a day-to­
day basis; (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks; and/or (3) the correlation 
between that work and a need for a particular level education of highly specialized knowledge in a 
specific specialty. 
Similarly, it is the substantive nature of the work that determines (1) the normal minimum educational 
requirement for the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which 
are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, 
under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered 
3 
position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong of criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification for 
a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and 
( 5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
As the Director did not address this issue, we will remand the matter for further development of the 
record regarding the proffered position's status as a specialty occupation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner was not previously accorded the opportunity to address the above, we will remand 
the record for further review of this issue. The Director may request any additional evidence 
considered pertinent to the new determination. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
4