sustained H-1B Case: Business Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21841777 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN . 8, 2022 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "advisory 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. § 1101(a)(15)(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 did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation or that the Beneficiary is 
qualified for the proffered position . On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence, 
and contends that the petition should be approved. 
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. See 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 provides additional evidence which establishes, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, that the position is a specialty occupation . In particular , the Petitioner 's description of the 
work assignments to be performed by the Beneficiary provides additional details that augment the 
probative value of the more-generic job duties the Director correctly relied upon in her denial. In other 
words, while the Director correctly determined that the Petitioner had not provided sufficient details 
regarding the substantive nature of the proffered position , the evidence submitted on appeal remedies 
that defect. As such, the evidence ofrecord now establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 
the proffered position requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge , and the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
The position therefore qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation as the term is defined at 
section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C .F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(ii) . It also establishes that the position is 
sufficiently complex that it can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, and therefore also satisfies 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). Further , the Petitioner 
has provided a labor condition application that is commensurate with the position's duties and the 
Beneficiary's level ofresponsibility. 
With regards to the Director's determination that the Beneficiary is not qualified to perform the 
services of this position, the Petitioner has similarly overcome the Director's finding, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, with its submission on appeal. In particular, the Petitioner's additional 
expert opinion now provides sufficient detail to establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform 
the duties of this position, which we have concluded is a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2