remanded H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-V-G-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 6, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in inside sales for senior health insurance products, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "DevOps Engineer I" under the H-lB nonimrnigrant 
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 nonimmigrant 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). We note the Petitioner has not submitted 
sufficient evidence to establish that the proposed work will be H-lB caliber work. 
The Petitioner stated that it is an inside sales and marketing company with product offerings in the area 
of health and life insurance, and indicated that the Beneficiary will be employed in-house as a "DevOps 
Matter of S-V-G-
Engineer I." The Petitioner designated the position on the labor condition application (LCA) 1 as a 
Standard Occupation Classification code 15-1132 "Software Developer, Applications" occupation. 
In establishing a position as a specialty occupation, the Petitioner must describe the specific duties and 
responsibilities to be performed by the Beneficiary in the context of its business operations to 
substantiate that it has H-lB caliber work for the Beneficiary. The Petitioner initially provided a 
12-bullet point list of duties, which did not convey an understanding of the actual duties that will engage 
the Beneficiary on a daily basis. For example, the list of duties includes tasks with no context such as 
"[ w ]ork effectively as a team member with other members of management," "[ a ]ccurately communicate 
pertinent information within the IT department and with other business units," and "[ e ]xemplify the 
desired culture and philosophies of the organization." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner expanded on the original 12-bullet points, 
offering additional details regarding the specific tasks associated with each stated duty and the percentage 
of time the Beneficiary would devote to each duty. However, with the jargon-heavy language used to 
describe the proposed tasks, it is not possible to ascertain what exactly the Beneficiary will be required to 
do. Specifically, the updated description does not sufficiently communicate (1) the actual work the 
Beneficiary would perform on a day-to-day basis; (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of 
the tasks; or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level of education of highly 
specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
Finally, the record as constituted does not include sufficient detail regarding the proposed duties to 
establish that the duties are the duties of a "Software Developer, Applications," the occupational 
classification selected by the Petitioner on the LCA. Here, when comparing the generally described 
duties to the tasks listed in the O*NET Summary Report for this occupation, they do not appear to 
correspond. 2 
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 S-P-G-, ID# 6690055 (AAO Sept. 6, 2019) 
1 A petitioner is required to submit an LCA to the Depaitment of Labor to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid 
by the employer to other employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
2 See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/l 5-1132 (last visited Sept. 4, 2019). 
2