remanded H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7261536 
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. 30, 2020 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in commercial banking, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as an "agile software developer" under the H-1 B 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 evidence of 
record does not establish that: (1) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation; and, (2) 
the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in the decision. 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 . 
Based upon our review of the entire record of proceedings, the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence 
to demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. The totality of the record 
establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Petitioner's particular position requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of 
a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entering 
into the occupation in the United States. The record establishes that the nature of the specific duties 
is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with 
the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, and therefore 
satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4) . 
However, we will remand the petition for further review of the record regarding whether the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation . 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's decision does not sufficiently explain the 
basis for denying the petition . For example, the Director's decision noted that the Petitioner did not 
show that the proffered position is a specialty occupation and therefore has not shown that the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position, but the Director does not 
discuss in detail why evidence in the record is not sufficient to establish it. 
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. 
2