sustained H-1B Case: Game Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8758320 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 22, 2020 
The Petitioner , a company engaged in the design, manufacture , and marketing of gaming machines, 
progressive systems, and casino management systems, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
game designer I 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 Beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position . The matter is now before us on 
appeal. On appeal , the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director erred in denying the 
petition. Upon de nova review , we will sustain the appeal. 
Based upon our review of the entire record of proceedings , including the submission s on appeal 
addressing the grounds for the Director's decision , we find that the Petitioner has overcome the basis 
of the Director's denial. Our review of the Beneficiary's academic credentials , as well as evidence of 
the relationship between the duties and the Beneficiary's academic degree establish that the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. The totality of the evidence 
establishes that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. As a result, 
the Petitioner has satisfied the requirements under section 2 l 4(i)(2) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(C). 
Though not addressed by the Director, we also find that the duties of the proffered position are so 
specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with at 
least a U.S . bachelor 's degree in a specific specialty , or the 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. 
2