sustained H-1B Case: Electronics Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6480698 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 3, 2020 
The Petitioner, an electronics manufacturing company, 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)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 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 Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record 
does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that the Director erred in denying the petition. Upon 
de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
The evidence of record establishes that the proffered position requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and that it is so complex or unique that it can 
be performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in specific specialty, or the 
equivalent. Specifically, the Petitioner provided a sufficiently detailed job description and explained 
why the duties are specialized and complex. Along with evidence of its organizational structure and 
samples of the Beneficiary's work product, the Petitioner provided evidence of its business operations 
and explained the Beneficiary's role within those operations. As such, the Petitioner has provided 
sufficient explanation of why the Beneficiary's duties require specialized knowledge usually 
associated with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Therefore, we 
conclude that the evidence of record satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). The 
Petitioner has established that the proffered position 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.