sustained H-1B Case: Artificial Intelligence Software

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7029753 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 24, 2020 
The Petitioner, an artificial intelligence software solutions company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary under the H-IB 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-IB 
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 evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation . 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that the Director erred in denying the petition. Upon 
de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
The evidence of record establishes that the proffered position requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and that it is so complex or unique that it can 
be performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in specific specialty, or the 
equivalent. Specifically, the Petitioner provided a sufficiently detailed job description and explained 
why the duties are specialized and complex. The Petitioner also described the technology involved 
and established that the Beneficiary's duties require specialized knowledge usually associated with a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Therefore , we conclude that the 
evidence of record satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). The Petitioner has 
established that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation as defined 
by section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.