sustained H-1B Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF F-&K-L-F-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 11, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , a law firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See 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 (1) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation; and (2) the Beneficiary is 
qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation. Upon de nova 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 bases 
of the Director's denial. The Petitioner has provided detailed job duties for the proffered position, as 
well as work samples corresponding to the listed duties , and explained why the duties are specialized 
and complex. Specifically , we find 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 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 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 2 l 4(i)( 1) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Additionally , we find that the record establishes that the Beneficiary is qualified to 
perform the duties of the proffered position. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of F-&K-L-F- , ID# 4113249 (AAO Sept. 11, 2019)