sustained H-1B Case: Data Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 18, 2024 In Re: 34081003 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 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 file a petition with U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services 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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
(petition), concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary qualified for the offered 
position based on the employer's position prerequisite education requirements. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375 
(AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 
537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
On the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an "analyst" and they submitted 
the required Department of Labor ETA Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application for 
Nonimmigrant Workers with this petition, where it classified the proffered position under the 
occupational title "Data Scientists," corresponding to the standard occupational classificational code 
15-2051 . The Petitioner stated its offered position required "a Bachelor's degree in [] a quantitative 
field like statistics, mathematics, data analytics or other related fields that provide skills to work with 
large data sets." The employer also provided the Beneficiary's Bachelor of Arts in Economics diploma 
and her accompanying transcripts that denoted her major was economics and she minored in data 
analytics. 
The Petitioner further described some of the Beneficiary's economics coursework noting how the 
courses concentrated on the fields of study listed in the Handbook for Data Scientists, and posited that 
even if her major coursework was not adequate to qualify her for the position, then her minor in data 
analytics did qualify as it could serve as the appropriate field of study. 
The Petitioner closed its request for evidence (RFE) response making a correction to the Director's 
statement in the RFE in which they misstated the petitioning organization's education requirements 
for the position. Instead of the Petitioner's stated requirements (a bachelor's degree in a quantitative 
field like statistics, mathematics, data analytics or other related fields that provide skills to work with 
large data sets), the Director attributed to the position, the Handbook's typical education requirements 
from the Data Scientists profile. We observe that when the Director denied the petition, they made 
the same statement they made in the RFE indicating the organization did not explain how the 
Beneficiary's bachelor's degree in economics related to the position's duties, without offering a 
response to much of the Petitioner's statements in the RFE response. 
On appeal, the Petitioner raises many of the issues we discussed above. First, that the Director 
misstated their position education prerequisites. Second, they explain how the Beneficiary's 
coursework directly relates to the position's duties. The Petitioner also offers additional evidence with 
the appeal. 
The Beneficiary possesses a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree, and as such, the only issue in this 
appeal is whether her degree is one that is required by the specialty occupation according to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(l). We conclude that the Beneficiary's bachelor's degree in economics with a 
minor in data analytics satisfies the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(/) for a bachelor's or 
higher degree required by the specialty occupation from an accredited college or university. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2