sustained H-1B Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8856275 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 26, 2020 
The Petitioner, a state chartered joint action agency, 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)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(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 of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record 
does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. Upon de nova review, we will sustain 
the appeal. 
We conclude that 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 
sufficiently articulated why the duties are specialized and complex. The Petitioner has also established 
that the duties require specialized knowledge usually associated with a bachelor's or higher degree 
that concentrates in finance. 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 . 
1 The Director also concluded that the Beneficiary was ineligible to change status. However , there is no provision in the 
regulations for an appeal from a denial of a change of status and extension of stay request. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 214. l(c)(S) , 
248.3(g); see also DRS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003). We therefore have 
no jurisdiction over this matter and consequently will address neither (I) the Director 's determination regarding the 
Beneficiary 's status, nor (2) the claims made on appeal contesting that determination .