sustained H-1B Case: Data Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 15, 2025 In Re: 35828020 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner a large retailer, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a senior data scientist 
under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(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 that 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 I&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. 
We note that while the Director provide analysis of some of the Petitioner's claims under the first 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), other claims were not addressed such as the contents of 
the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook. However, it is unnecessary that we 
address that issue as we base our decision on other factors. 
Although we are not making an affirmative determination under the third criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), we observe a factor worth noting. The Petitioner neither claimed nor 
provided any evidence relating to this criterion that entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Still, the Director 
accessed the Petitioner's website for nine positions with what appears to be similar job titles as the 
position offered in the petition. The Director noted the advertised jobs were associated with 
prerequisites that differed from the offered position. 
While the Director provided the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for the job advertisements, they 
did not evaluate the duties of those advertised positions to establish the duties of the positions with 
differing prerequisites were effectively the same duties as the offered position. Instead, the Director 
characterized all of the advertised positions as senior data scientists even though some of the URLs 
reflected they were for senior data scientists with other specializations ( e.g., ad measurement, 
advertising measurement, personalization). When the Director noted the advertised jobs were 
associated with prerequisites that differed from the offered position, it does not appear they accounted 
for the other specializations that might account for the prerequisites the Petitioner would find as 
acceptable to qualify for the advertised positions. 
The Director subsequently attributed the position prerequisites for those nine advertised positions to 
the position in this petition, and that was an error without adequate analysis explaining how they 
determined the positions in the advertisements were sufficiently similar to the position offered in the 
petition. The Director seemingly did not account for the large number of personnel the Petitioner 
employs and that they might have a wide variety of positions with a similar name, but with a variance 
in the duties that could account for the differing position prerequisites. 
But those elements are not determinative of our decision here. Instead, we conclude 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. This aligns with the Petitioner's claims under criterion 
four at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Therefore, the record satisfies the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), and 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). The 
record demonstrates that the Beneficiary possesses a qualifying degree, so he is qualified to perform 
the duties of this specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2