sustained H-1B

sustained H-1B Case: E-Commerce

๐Ÿ“… Date unknown ๐Ÿ‘ค Company ๐Ÿ“‚ 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

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) . 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

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.