remanded H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-, INC . 
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 software development services firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"specialist engineer" 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 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). 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. 
Matter of G-, Inc. 
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 G-, Inc., ID# 6198208 (AAO Sept. 6, 2019) 
2