sustained H-1B Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21702782 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition forNonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 26, 2022 
The Petitioner seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary employment under the H-1 B 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)(iXb). 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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 
concluding that the position in the petition required a license but the Petitioner did not establish that 
the Beneficiary possessed a license. The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the 
burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . Section 291 of the Act; 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de 
nova. Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we 
will sustain the appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that they designated the Architects, Except Landscape and Naval 
Standard Occupational Classificational (SOC) code ( 17-1011) on the U.S. Department of Labor' sETA 
Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers. But the actual 
position the Beneficiary already occupied was an architectural designer, a lesser position than an 
architect. And even though the position continued to require a five-year bachelor's degree in 
architecture, the relevant state authorities did not require occupants of this position to obtain licensure, 
as we explain below. 
We do not agree with the Director that the Petitioner did not provide any evidence the state allows an 
individual without a license to fully practice the occupation under the supervision of a licensed senior 
or supervisory personnel. The Texas Administrative Code indicates organizations that employ at least 
one full-time registered architect, or associates with at least one architect, may employ those who are 
not registered architects (nonregistrant's) as long as a registered architect exercises "responsible 
charge" through "supervision and control" over the nonregistrant's work. See 22 Tex. Admin. Code 
§ 1.123(b ); 22 Tex. Admin. Code§ 1.5(53), (62). As the Director noted, the Petitioner provided the 
license belonging to the Beneficiary's supervisor demonstrating this employer complied with the state 
code described above. 
Ultimately, even though the state where the Beneficiary would work generally requires licensure to 
practice in the occupation, it allows individuals without licensure to work under the supervision of 
licensed senior or supervisory personnel in that occupation in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(v)(C)(I). The record establishes that the Beneficiary would do so. As a result, the 
position in the petition did not require the Beneficiary to obtain a license to qualify for the position. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2