sustained H-1B Case: Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 10016442 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 24, 2020 
The Petitioner, a consulting company to public agencies, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
under the H-1 B nonirnrnigrant 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 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. On appeal, the Petitioner 
submits a brief and additional documentation and asserts that the Director's decision was erroneous. 
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. 
We conclude that the record establishes that more likely than not, the Petitioner had valid work 
available for the Beneficiary at the time the petition was filed. We also conclude 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 sufficiently articulated the scope of its business operations and 
explained why the Beneficiary's duties are specialized and complex. The Petitioner has also 
established that the duties require specialized knowledge usually associated with a bachelor's or higher 
degree directly related to the position. 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 .