sustained H-1B Case: Facility Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4932229 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 29, 2020 
The Petitioner, a facility management 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-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 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 conclude that the Petitioner has overcome the 
basis of the Director's denial. Here, the record establishes 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 bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Specifically, the 
Petitioner has provided a detailed job description and explained why these duties, when performed 
within the context of its specific business operation, are specialized and complex. Moreover, though 
the Petitioner identified a range of degrees as acceptable for the proffered position that on its face may 
appear broad, the record of proceedings in this particular case establishes by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the knowledge associated with the proposed duties nonetheless constitutes a "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" such that attainment of one of those degrees would still constitute a 
degree "in the specific specialty" as contemplated by section 214(i)(l) of the Act. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). Therefore, the record satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( 4). Further, 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, 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 184(i)(l), and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.