remanded H-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8088223 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 27, 2020 
The Petitioner, a technology services and software product-engineering firm, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a "software quality assurance 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 Petitioner will maintain an employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary . 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in denying 
the petition. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the decision of the 
Director. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the analysis below. 
I. EMPLOYER- EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP 
Based upon our review of the entire record of proceedings, including the submissions on appeal 
addressing the grounds for the Director's decision, we conclude that the Petitioner will be the 
Beneficiary's United States employer as that term is defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), for the 
duration of the period requested. The totality of the record establishes, by a repond
1
rance of the 
evidence, that the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in-house at its office in Washington 
and will control the terms of her employment for the duration of the requested period. As such, we 
hereby withdraw the Director's decision on this issue. 
II. SPECIAL TY OCCUPATION 
However, the Director should determine whether the record of proceedings is currently sufficient to 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
For example, the Director should determine whether the provided descriptions of the Beneficiary's 
duties provide the specificity and detail necessary to support the Petitioner's contention that the position 
is a specialty occupation. In establishing such a position as a specialty occupation, the description of the 
proffered position must include sufficient details to substantiate that the Petitioner has H-1 B caliber work 
for the Beneficiary. 1 
In addition, the Petitioner submits copies of "internal chat logs" on appeal between the Beneficiary and 
her supervisor. While these chat logs are intended to demonstrate how the Beneficiary is supervised, 
they may provide additional information pertaining to the duties of the proffered position. For example, 
the chat logs include references to assignments and collaborations between the Beneficiary and others 
in order to perform the tasks associated with the listed duties. 
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. 
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 Without a meaningful job description, we cannot determine (1) the actual work that the Beneficiary would perform on a 
day-to-day basis; (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks; and/or (3) the correlation between that 
work and a need for a particular level education of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
It is the substantive nature of the work that determines ( 1) the normal minimum educational requirement for the particular 
position, which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus 
appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of 
complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong of criterion 2; (4) the 
factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; 
and (5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
2