sustained H-1B Case: Business Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9091675 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 29, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a business 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 position qualified as a specialty occupation under any of the criteria in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) . The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
the Director's decision was in error because the position's duties are so specialized and complex that 
the knowledge required to perform the duties is associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence .1 We review the questions in this matter de novo.2 Upon de nova 
review, we will sustain the appeal. 
The totality of the evidence establishes that the nature of the proffered position's specific duties is so 
specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the 
attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Our evaluation of the overall weight 
of the evidentiary record leads us to conclude that this case favors sustaining the appeal under the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4) . Further, the Petitioner has established that the proffered 
position otherwise qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation as that term is defined by 
section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Additionally, the 
record establishes that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the services of this specialty occupation . 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained . 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofCha wathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc ., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) .