sustained H-1B Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8870707 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 5, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "associate" 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 proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and 
contends that the petition should be approved. 
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 novo.2 Upon de nova review , we will sustain 
the appeal. 
Though the Petitioner did not provide the practice group within which the Beneficiary would work , it 
explained that he would work with its clients in the chemical , petrochemical , and pharmaceutical 
engineering industries , and it provided credible , detailed descriptions of the duties he would perform , 
and of the types of projects upon which he would work, as part of his employment. Moreover , the 
evidence of record is sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the proffered 
position requires at least a bachelor's degree in physics or a related field. When reviewed within the 
context of the Petitioner's business operations, we find the evidence ofrecord sufficient to demonstrate 
that this Beneficiary 's work would in fact involve a "body of highly specialized knowledge " attained 
through a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the proffered position. 
The evidence of record therefore establishes that the proffered position requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge , and the attainment of a bachelor's or 
higher degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent. It therefore qualifies for classification as a specialty 
1 See Section 291 of the Act; see also Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
occupation as the term is defined at section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). It also 
establishes that the position is so complex or unique that it can only be performed by an individual with a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, and it therefore also satisfies 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). The record demonstrates that the Beneficiary possesses the equivalent ofbachelor' s, 
master's, and doctoral degrees in physics, so he is qualified to perform the duties of this specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2