sustained H-1B Case: Internet Sales

(b)(6)
DATE: JAN 2 2 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § llOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
)Nt� j)vr 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. The petition 
will be approved. 
On the Form I-129 visa petition, the petitioner describes itself as a 1495-employee "Internet sales" 
firm. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty 
occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b ). 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary is 
qualified for the proffered position. On appeal, counsel asserted that the director's basis for denial 
was erroneous and contended that the petitioner satisfied all evidentiary requirements. In support of 
these contentions, counsel submitted a brief and additional evidence. 
Based upon our review of the entire record of proceeding we find that the petitioner has overcome 
the sole basis of the director's denial. We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane 
v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has been met. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be sustained. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.