remanded H-1B Case: Packaging Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6758326 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 12, 2020 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer and marketer of packaged food products, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as a "sr. packaging engineer I, global gum & candy" 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. § 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 submits 
additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
While we conduct de nova review on appeal, we conclude that a remand is wairnnted 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 
(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]."). 
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.