sustained H-1B Case: Business Operations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 17330254 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 17, 2021 
The Petitioner, al !internet company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a senior 
manager for business operations 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 evidence of 
record does not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified for the position. On appeal, the Petitioner 
submits a brief, additional evidence, and asserts that the Director erred . The Petitioner bears the 
burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 We review questions 
in this matter de nova. 2 
The evidence ofrecord before the Director was insufficient to satisfy 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) . 
As the Director noted, the evidence was sufficient to establish that the evaluator possessed authority 
to grant college-level credit for training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or 
university with a program for granting such credit based on an individual's training and/or work 
experience. However, the Director determined , correctly, that the evaluator's analysis was not 
persuasive because the record of proceeding lacked evidence regarding the work experience upon 
which the evaluation was premised. 
The Petitioner submits that evidence on appeal, and it is sufficient to establish a reasonable basis for 
the evaluator's conclusions . It is enough to satisfy, by a preponderance of the evidence, the 
requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) and therefore overcomes the sole basis of the 
Director's denial. The Director's decision, therefore, is hereby withdrawn and the appeal will be 
sustained . 3 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 J&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
3 The Petitioner filed two separate appeals of the Director 's decision, and we are adjudicating both today. Sustaining this 
The Director did not address the specialty-occupation issue in her decision. While we presume that is 
because she found the proffered position to be a specialty occupation, we will nonetheless note for the 
record that we believe the position is, in fact, a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
appeal I I wi)~ render the other :rpeal I ~ moot, and it will be dismissed on that basis. 
However, because this appeal lis being sustained, the end result for the Petitioner will be approval of 
the underlying H-lB petition. 
2