sustained H-1B

sustained H-1B Case: Insurance

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 Insurance

Decision Summary

The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner had successfully established the beneficiary's qualifications for the proffered position, overcoming the director's initial reason for denial. The AAO also determined that the position's duties were specialized and complex enough to qualify it as a specialty occupation.

Criteria Discussed

Beneficiary'S Qualifications Specialty Occupation

View Full Decision Text

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-C-I- CO. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 5, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a property and casualty insurance company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. Immigration and 
Nationality 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 did 
not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position. Upon de novo review, we will 
sustain the appeal. 
Based upon our review of the entire record of proceedings, including the submissions on appeal 
addressing the grounds for the Director's decision, we find that the Petitioner has overcome the basis 
of the Director's denial. Specifically, 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 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), 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. 
Cite as Matter of P-C-1- Co. , ID# 5037235 (AAO Sept. 5, 2019)

Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Use this winning precedent in your petition

MeritDraft analyzes sustained AAO decisions like this one to generate petition arguments that mirror what actually gets approved.

Build Your Winning Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.