remanded H-1B Case: Physical Therapy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 15, 2025 In Re: 35823178 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner, a physical therapy and rehabilitation facility, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment, this time as a physical therapist 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 file a petition with U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 Nebraska Service Center Director denied the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
(petition), concluding the record did not establish that the offered position qualified as a specialty 
occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. The Petitioner bears the 
burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de 
novo. Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we 
will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
The Petitioner, through counsel, did not initially state any prerequisites for the offered position. 
Counsel offered a generalized and vague job description and proclaimed the Beneficiary was qualified 
for the position based on her foreign degrees and work experience. The Director requested a "detailed 
description of the duties of the position and the educational, training, and experience requirements of 
the position" in a request for evidence (RFE), but no additional duties were presented in the RFE 
response. As part of the denial, the Director indicated the Petitioner provided no details about the 
position it was offering to the Beneficiary, nor did it specify any position prerequisites. A review of 
the RFE response does not fully bear out the Director's statement that the Petitioner didn't specify any 
position prerequisites. In the RFE response, counsel's cover letter provided: 
To adequately address the RFE requirements , we are submitting evidence that [the] 
Beneficiary's position requires at least a bachelor's degree, a higher degree, or its 
equivalent as a requirement for entry into the position. First, the New York State 
Education Department, Office of the Professions, outlines that a master's or higher 
degree in physical therapy is required to be an accredited PT. (Exhibit A). Additionally, 
the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science published a summary about PTs 
including the higher education requirements. The Mayo Clinic specifically state that: 
To become a physical therapist, you'll need to complete a physical 
therapy program. Specifically, you'll need to either complete a 
bachelor's degree and then a doctoral program in physical therapy, or 
you might choose a 3+ 3 physical therapy program that combines the 
degrees into a total of six years of higher education. 
Now on appeal, the Petitioner provides additional information relating to both the duties and its 
position prerequisites. Based on the occupation and the additional materials submitted with the appeal, 
we will remand the matter for the Director to make the specialty occupation determination in the first 
instance. In doing so, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
If the Director makes a favorable determination on the specialty occupation issue, they should also 
evaluate all the evidence in the record to decide whether the Beneficiary's background establishes that 
she is qualified to occupy the position in the petition. It is unclear whether she qualifies, and we note 
the RFE did not address that issue to afford the Petitioner an opportunity to adequately address it. 
The specific facts of this case-not all of which are presented here-warrant a remand for the Director 
to fully consider the record in its entirety, to include the claims and evidence submitted with the appeal. 
Accordingly, we will remand the matter to the Director for further consideration and issuance of a new 
decision. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new 
determination and any other issue. Again, 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. 
2