remanded H-1B Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6853541 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 31, 2020 
The Petitioner, a management consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"consultant, user experience design and research" 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 evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. Upon de nova review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the petition for further review of the record and 
a new decision. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i) states that when denying a petition , the Director shall explain 
in writing the specific reasons for denial. Upon review, we find that the Director based her decision , 
in part, on the incorrect response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). It appears that the 
response to the RFE in the file is for a different Petitioner and Beneficiary, and does not relate to the 
current petition. 
When denying a petition , the Director must fully explain the reasons in order to allow the Petitioner a 
fair opportunity to contest the decision and provide the AAO an opportunity for meaningful appellate 
review. Cf Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that the reasons for denying a 
motion must be clear to allow the affected party a meaningful opportunity to challenge the 
determination on appeal). We therefore are remanding the case to the Director for further review and 
to provide sufficient explanation of the grounds of denial with regard to the evidence in this particular 
case so that the Petitioner more fully understands the Director's concerns. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn . The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis.