sustained H-1B Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-U-0-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 17,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a university, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-1 B 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Upon de novo review, we will sustain 
the appeal. 
Based upon our review of the entire record of proceedings, including the submissions on appeal 
addressing the grounds for the Director's decision, we find that the Petitioner has overcome the basis 
of the Director's denial. Specifically, the totality of evidence now establishes that the Petitioner 
normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the 
position. Therefore, we conclude that the evidence of record satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). Further, the Petitioner has also established that the proffered position 
otherwise qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation as defined by section 214(i)(l) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
However, the Director should make a separate determination regarding whether the Beneficiary 
qualifies for a change of status and an extension of stay under 8 C.F.R. §§ 248.3(a) and 214.2(h)(15). 
Every nonimmigrant who applies for admission to, or an extension of stay, in the United States must 
establish that he or she is admissible to the United States. Here, the record appears to indicate that 
the Beneficiary is likely to become a public charge and is inadmissible. The Petitioner indicated on 
the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, that the Beneficiary would work "5-1 0" hours 
per week at a wage of $14.75 per hour, which means the Beneficiary's income would be $3835 to 
Matter ofT-U-0-A-
$7670 per year. The 2016 poverty threshold for a one-person household IS $11,880, and the 
Beneficiary' proffered salary is below the poverty threshold. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite f!S Matter o.fT-U-0-A-, ID# 139347 (AAO Jan. 17, 2017) 
2