remanded H-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15470171 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 10, 2021 
The Petitioner, an information products company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"software engineer II" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 1 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 asserts 
that the Director erred in the decision. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
While we conduct de nova review on appeal, 2 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. 3 
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). We note the Petitioner has not submitted 
sufficient evidence to establish the duties and responsibilities of the Beneficiary. The Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation because the record lacks 
sufficient evidence of the actual work that the Beneficiary will perform. 
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 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
2 See Matter of Christa 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
3 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 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