remanded H-1B Case: Software Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF U-T-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 19, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"senior carrier operations analyst" 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. 
§ 110l(a)(l5)(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 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). In particular, the record includes multiple 
issues related to whether the proffered position is a specialty occupation. First, the Petitioner's claim 
that a bachelor's degree in business administration is a sufficient minimum requirement for entry into 
the proffered position appears inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation . A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific 
course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. Since there must be a close 
correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the requirement of a degree with 
a generalized title, such as business administration, without further specification, does not establish 
the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 558, 560 
Matter of U-T-, Inc. 
(Comm'r 1988). Second, the record does not reflect that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation under at least one of the four regulatory specialty-occupation criteria enumerated 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(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. 
Cite as Matter ofU-T-, Inc., ID# 6057222 (AAO Sept. 19, 2019) 
2