sustained H-1B Case: Decision Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10423035 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 17, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "senior decision manager I" 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 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the position qualified as a specialty occupation under any of the criteria in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
the Director's decision was in error. In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence.1 We review the questions in 
this matter de nova. 2 Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
The totality of the evidence establishes that the nature of the proffered position's specific duties is so 
specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the 
attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Our evaluation of the overall weight 
of the evidentiary record leads us to conclude that this case favors sustaining the appeal under the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). The Petitioner has established that the proffered position 
also qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation as that term is 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). Further, the Petitioner has provided a 
labor condition application that is commensurate with the specialized and complex duties and the 
Beneficiary's level of responsibility. Additionally, the record establishes that the Beneficiary is 
qualified to perform the services of this specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015).