sustained H-1B Case: Engineering Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8707989 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : APR. 29, 2020 
The Petitioner , an engineering design firm , seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 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 California Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Upon de nova 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. The Petitioner has provided a detailed job description for the proffered 
position , as well as work samples completed by the Beneficiary and corresponding to the position, and 
explained why these duties , when performed within the context of its specific business operation , are 
specialized and complex . Specifically, we find that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized 
and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of 
a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty , or its equivalent , as required by 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4) . Further , we conclude that Petitioner has established , by a preponderance of 
the evidence , that the particular position being offered to the Beneficiary qualifies for classification as 
a specialty occupation as the term is defined at section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(h)(4)(ii) . 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.