sustained
H-1B
sustained H-1B Case: E-Commerce
Decision Summary
The appeal was sustained because the petitioner successfully demonstrated that it does not place individuals at third-party locations, a key point of contention. As a result, the AAO concluded that the petitioner had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the proffered position meets the regulatory and statutory definitions of a specialty occupation.
Criteria Discussed
Specialty Occupation Third-Party Worksite 8 C.F.R. ยง 214.2(H)(4)(Iii)(A)(1) Ina ยง 214(I)(1)
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services In Re: 10133846 Appeal of California Service Center Decision Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office Date : OCT . 2, 2020 The Petitioner, an e-commerce platform, seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily under the H-IB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 1 The H-IB 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 California Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, concluding that the record did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation and that the Beneficiary will perform services in a specialty occupation for the requested period of intended employment. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 We review the questions in this matter de nova. 3 Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. While we do not find all of the Petitioner's arguments on appeal persuasive, we do agree that it has established that it is not subject to Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F 3d 34, 387 (5th Cir. 2000) and that it does not place individuals at third party locations. As a result, the Petitioner has demonstrated eligibility for this classification by a preponderance of the evidence . Specifically, we conclude that the proffered position meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. ยง 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). The Petitioner has also established that the position satisfies the statutory definition of a specialty occupation found within section 214(i)(l) of the Act. ORDER: The appeal is sustained . 1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. ยง l 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) .
Use this winning precedent in your petition
MeritDraft analyzes sustained AAO decisions like this one to generate petition arguments that mirror what actually gets approved.
Build Your Winning Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.