sustained H-1B Case: Competitive Intelligence Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5039534 
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. 29, 2020 
The Petitioner, a large-scale rental and leasing company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "senior competitive intelligence analyst" 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)(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 record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualified as a specialty occupation. 
Upon de nova review , we conclude that the record establishes that the nature of the specific duties is 
so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with 
the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Specifically , 
the Petitioner has provided a detailed job description and explained why the duties are specialized and 
complex and compensated the Beneficiary in accordance with those complexities. In addition, the 
Petitioner established that the duties require specialized knowledge usually associated with a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty by outlining the educational requirements that 
consist of a specific range of acceptable degrees. Therefore, the record satisfies the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). Further, 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, 8 U.S .C. 
§ 1184(i)(l), and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.