remanded H-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8722124 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 13, 2020 
The Petitioner, an online payment solutions company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
an "MTS 1, software 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 submits 
additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
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). The Petitioner has not sufficiently described 
the duties of the proffered position such that we may discern the nature of the position and whether the 
position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. 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-lB caliber work for the Beneficiary. 
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. 
Similarly, 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. 
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. 
2