remanded H-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8229876 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 23, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification 
for specialty occupations . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . 
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 submits 
additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
While we conduct de novo 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]."). The record reflects that the Director's decision letter did not include a discussion of 
whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) . 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a software engineer. The Petitioner initially stated 
this position required at least a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in computer science, mathematics, 
engineering , or a related field. The Petitioner changed its position requirements in its response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE) without offering an explanation. The Petitioner revised the 
position 's degree requirement to a minimum of a bachelor 's degree in computer science, geospatial 
engineering , environmental engineering, statistics , or a related field. 
The Petitioner's claimed entry requirements for the proffered position are inadequate to establish that 
the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. In general, provided the specialties are 
closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more 
than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)" 
requirement of section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized 
knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the 
required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the pos1t10n, however, a m1mmum entry 
requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet 
the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)," unless the 
Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 1 
The Petitioner's acceptance of a bachelor's or higher degree in geospatial engineering or 
environmental engineering as qualifications for the proffered position suggests that the proffered 
position is not a specialty occupation. Moreover, the acceptance of these degrees raises questions as 
to whether the position belongs in the "Software Developers, Applications" occupational category, 
corresponding to the standard occupational classification code 15-1132, as designated in the labor 
condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the petition. We note that the subchapter of the 
Department of Labor (DOL)'s Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) pertaining to the 
occupation of Software Developers states, in relevant part, that "[ s ]oftware developers usually have a 
degree, typically in computer science, software engineering, or a related field." 2 Although the 
Petitioner lists computer science as an acceptable degree field, it is unclear how or why a degree in 
geospatial or environmental engineering is a closely related field to the position or to a computer 
science degree. Moreover, it is unclear why the Petitioner added statistics to its acceptable degree 
fields, or how such a degree relates to the proffered position. 3 
The Petitioner's inconsistent minimum requirements undermine a claim that the proffered position 
requires a specific degree. The issue here is that it is not readily apparent that these fields of study are 
closely related or that they are directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position proffered in this matter. The evidence ofrecord does not establish how these dissimilar fields 
of study form either a body of highly specialized knowledge or a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
and the Petitioner asserts that the job duties of this particular position can be performed by an 
individual with a bachelor's degree in any of these unrelated fields. 
It is the Petitioner' burden to establish that the duties of the proffered position necessitate at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 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. 
1 In other words, while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," we do not so nanowly 
interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they pennit, as a minimum entry 
requirement, degrees in more than one closely related specialty. See section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of record 
establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position. 
2 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Software Developers, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/soft:ware-developers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Apr. 2, 
2020). 
3 We further note that the Petitioner omitted the field of mathematics in response to the Director's RFE without explanation. 
2