sustained H-1B Case: Financial Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9090165 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: WL Y 29, 2020 
The Petitioner, a financial services company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
business analyst under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 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. On appeal, the Petitioner 
submits a brief and asserts that the Director erred. 
In these proceedings, 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 nova. 2 Upon de nova 
review, we will sustain the appeal. 
We conclude the Petitioner has overcome the basis of the Director's denial. In this matter, 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, as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
Specifically, the Petitioner has provided a detailed job description and explained why these duties are 
so specialized and complex. In addition, the Petitioner established that the duties require specialized 
knowledge usually associated with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Though the Petitioner identified a range of degrees as acceptable for the proffered position 
that on its face may appear disparate fields of study, 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 2 l 4(i)(l) 
of the Act. 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 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) . 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2