sustained H-1B Case: Conflict Resolution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 25, 2024 In Re: 29827181 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to 
temporarily employ a qualified nonimmigrant 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition 1, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will sustain the appeal. 
We conclude upon de novo review that the record in its entirety credibly reflects that the Petitioner's 
conflict resolution research analyst is a specialty occupation. 2 We are not unsympathetic to the 
concerns raised by the Director in their RFE; the Petitioner initially described the position's duties in 
general terms without sufficient context or evidence in the record. The Petitioner's initial job 
description did not adequately establish the requirement of a degree or a range of degrees in a related 
field of fields constituting a specialty to perform the job duties. And the Petitioner's description of its 
services and objectives was not enough to evaluate the role of the proffered position in the context of 
1 On April 7, 2023 , the Director reopened the petition and re-issued their decision after the filing of this appeal ostensibly 
for the purpose of correcting typographical errors. The regulations do not permit the Director to reopen a matter after the 
filing of an appeal unless they intend to reverse course to issue a favorable decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(iii). So 
the decision in this matter dated April 7, 2023 should be withdrawn to ensure our decision today is the final administrative 
action in this matter. 
2 We have considered the typographical and other errors the Petitioner noted in the Director's decision dated December 6, 
2022 and conclude they did not impact the ultimate decision in a manner relevant to our consideration of this appeal. 
the Petitioner's business. For example, the Petitioner's description of its services emphasizedjargony 
terms such as "deep learning methods," "NLP," and "artificial intelligence" without explanation which 
did not illuminate how the performance of the duties of a conflict resolution research analyst would 
require knowledge in a specialty gained from attainment of a bachelor's degree in a related required 
field. In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted a letter from its chief 
executive officer which provided more specific information regarding its operations and the 
Beneficiary's duties, an hourly breakdown/timetable of the Beneficiary's daily duties, documentation 
reflecting a sample of the Petitioner's operations and business commitments, and information 
describing the Petitioner's products and services. 3 The Petitioner is a public policy analytic firm that 
compiles and synthesizes conflict event data. Specifically, the evidence submitted in response to the 
RFE credibly reflected the Petitioner's function servicing public sector entities such as international 
governments, international organizations, and institutions of higher education. The Petitioner 
described projects it had undertaken and supported by documentation in the record in a plausible 
manner. The projects ranged from analysis ofrelevant datapoints to predict instances of violence in a 
nation in East Africa, predicting ceasefire violations in eastern European conflict zones, and potential 
needs post peacebuilding in an area of southeast Asia plagued by civil strife. 
When viewed in the context of its operations and deliverables, the specialization and complexity of 
the expanded duties the Petitioner provided becomes apparent. As satisfactorily described in the 
Petitioner's letter and supported by evidence in the record reflecting the Petitioner's finished work 
product, the conflict resolution research analyst considers specific specialized and complex data points 
such as the dynamics of conflict events, conflict actors, history, intervenors, and social event factors 
impacting conflict events such as migration, climate change and economic conditions. The record 
reflects that collection of these data points also requires specialized and complex duties to sift through 
background such as historical occurrences to give the data point meaning, which are beyond simple 
gathering and collation. The synthesis of the information extrapolated from these divergent data 
points, according to the Petitioner, results in the predictive models the Petitioner provides to its clients 
The transcript and sample course syllabus of a degree in conflict resolution atl I 
present in the record supports the Petitioner's assertion that conflict resolution is the appropriate 
specialty required to evaluate these divergent data points and extrapolate them for predictive purposes. 
So overall we observe the record as sufficient to support the Petitioner's assertions by a preponderance 
of the evidence. When reviewed within the context of the Petitioner's business operations, we find 
the evidence of record adequate to demonstrate that this Beneficiary's work would in fact involve a 
"body of highly specialized knowledge" attained through a precise and specific course of study in 
conflict resolution that relates directly and closely to the duties of the proffered position. 
The evidence of record therefore establishes 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 the specific specialty or its equivalent. The proffered position 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). The evidence also establishes that the position is so specialized and complex 
that it can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent, and it therefore also satisfies 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). The record demonstrates 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
that the Beneficiary possesses a U.S. master's degree in conflict resolution, so they are qualified to 
perform the duties of this specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
3