sustained H-1B

sustained H-1B Case: Accounting

๐Ÿ“… Date unknown ๐Ÿ‘ค Company ๐Ÿ“‚ Accounting

Decision Summary

The appeal was sustained because upon de novo review, the AAO found that the petitioner had overcome the basis for the director's denial. The totality of the evidence, including submissions on appeal, established that the petitioner would have the requisite employer-employee relationship, the position qualifies as a specialty occupation, and the itinerary requirement was satisfied.

Criteria Discussed

Itinerary Requirement Employer-Employee Relationship Specialty Occupation

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
(b)(6)
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN.31,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an accounting, auditing, and tax consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary 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. 
ยง 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, Californi<:~. Service Center, concluded that the evidence in the record did not establish 
that: (1) the Petitioner complied with the itinerary requirement under 8 C.F.R. ยง 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B); 
(2) the Petitioner would maintain the requisite employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary; 
or (3) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that it has satisfied all evidentiary requirements. Upon de novo review, we will sustain the 
appeal. 
Based upon our review of the entire record of proceedings, including the submissions on appeal 
addressing the grounds for the Director's decision, we find that the Petitioner has overcome the basis 
of the Director's denial. Specifically, the totality of evidence now establishes that the Petitioner will 
ยท have the requisite employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary and the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. Further, the evidence of record also establishes that the 
Petitioner has satisfied the itinerary requirement. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. ยง 1361. Here, that burden has been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter oi ___ ID# 201823 (AAO Jan. 31, 2017). 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Use this winning precedent in your petition

MeritDraft analyzes sustained AAO decisions like this one to generate petition arguments that mirror what actually gets approved.

Build Your Winning Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.