remanded H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8468057 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 27, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "software developer" under the H-lB 
nonirnmigrant 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 California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner had specialty occupation work available for the Beneficiary for the requested 
employment period . 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de nova. 2 
On appeal the Petitioner submits new evidence that was not reasonably available to the Petitioner prior 
to the Director's decision. 
Although there are inconsistencies in the record regarding the proposed work, the Director is the more 
appropriate party to consider the totality of the evidence including the inconsistencies and the impact 
of the new evidence on eligibility under this visa classification. Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 7 64 
(BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). The Director may request any 
additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination . 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc ., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) .