sustained H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9531975 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 29, 2020 
The Petitioner , a financial institution , seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an information 
technology project manager under the H-1B 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 Petitioner had 
not established (a) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, and (b) the Beneficiary 
was qualified to perform services in the asserted 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 novo.2 Upon de nova 
review , we will sustain the appeal. 
Based upon our review of the entire record of proceedings , we conclude the Petitioner has overcome 
the basis of the Director's denial. On the specialty occupation issue, the totality of 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. The Petitioner has also established that the duties require specialized 
knowledge usually associated with a bachelor's or higher degree in computer science or a closely 
related information technology field. Further , the Petitioner has established that the proffered position 
qualifies for a specialty occupation as defined by Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), 
and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) . 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010) . 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Additionally, based upon our review of the entire record of proceedings, we conclude that the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. The Petitioner has established 
that the Beneficiary's degree shares sufficient commonality with the degree required to perform in the 
proffered position. The totality of the record establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 
Beneficiary's degree is directly related to the proffered position and that she is academically qualified 
to perform the duties of the specialty occupation. As a result, the Petitioner has satisfied the 
requirements under section 214(i)(2) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2