sustained H-1B Case: Data Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 21, 2025 In Re: 36063131 
Appeal of California 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. § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to file a petition with U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 California Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
(petition), concluding the record did not establish that the offered position qualified as a specialty 
occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 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 of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we 
will sustain the appeal. 
The Petitioner filed the U.S. Department of Labor ETA Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition 
Application for Nonimmigrant Workers under a subset of the Data Scientists standard occupational 
classificational code. The organization initially offered a job description and provided additional 
information relating to the position's duties in the response to the Director's request for evidence. And 
to qualify for the position, the Petitioner indicated that it required a bachelor's degree in computer 
science, data science, or a closely related quantitative analytical field. 
In the denial, the Director indicated the provided duties did not require a qualifying degree to perform 
them. But the Director did not offer additional details to explain this particular statement. They also 
focused on other aspects of the Petitioner's position requirements in the denial but made no mention 
of this as a possible adverse element in the request for evidence. We observe the Director did not 
factor all of the Petitioner's position qualifications into their analysis. We further note the Director 
concluded, and the Petitioner contests, that the petitioning organization accepts a wide spectrum of 
fields as a minimum requirement for entry to the position. The Director's conclusion relating to this 
wide spectrum of fields also influenced their analysis of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), but that determination was not accurate. Those collective actions constitute an 
error on the Director's part. 
Additionally, the Director did not discuss the Petitioner's claims under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4), and it is under that criterion that the petitioning organization has satisfied the 
regulatory requirements. 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. The 
Petitioner's position description, when reviewed within the broader context of its operations, depicts 
one that includes duties sufficiently complex that a qualifying degree would be required to perform 
them. The record in this particular case preponderantly establishes how the specified fields are directly 
related to the duties and responsibilities of this particular position. Moreover, the totality of the 
evidence establishes that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the offered position. 
Further, the Petitioner has established that the offered 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. 
2