sustained H-1B Case: Financial Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9096903 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 31, 2020 
The Petitioner, a financial services company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H­
lB nonirnmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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 is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that the Director erred in denying the petition . Upon 
de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
The evidence of record establishes that the proffered position requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and that it is so complex or unique that it can 
be performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in specific specialty , or the 
equivalent. Specifically, the Petitioner provided a sufficiently detailed job description and explained 
why the duties are specialized and complex. The Petitioner explained the Beneficiary's role within 
the context of its business operations and also provided examples and work product to demonstrate its 
claims. As such, the Petitioner has provided sufficient explanation of why the Beneficiary's duties 
require specialized knowledge usually associated with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. Therefore, we conclude that the evidence of record satisfies the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). 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 and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.