remanded H-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF I- CORP 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 5, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , a semiconductor manufacturer, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"software engineer" under the H-1B 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-1B 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). However, the record also shows that the 
Director did not make a determination as to whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation when rendering the decision. 
We do agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence 
to establish that the beneficiary's education, work experience and training are equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in information technology. Specifically, the education evaluation submitted by the 
Petitioner as well as the letters from the Beneficiary 's purported previous employers are insufficient. 
Matter of I- Corp 
We also note that the submitted letters from the Beneficiary's purported previous employers contain 
no signatures and are not written on company letterhead, and thus are not persuasive. 
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. 
Cite as Matter of I- Corp, ID# 05737744 (AAO Sept. 5, 2019) 
2