sustained H-1B Case: Management Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12089044 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 11, 2021 
The Petitioner, an international food importation and distribution company, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as a "management analyst" 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record 
does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the 
Petitioner submits a brief, additional evidence, and asserts that the Director erred. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 
We review questions in this matter de nova. 2 
Based upon the totality of the record evidence, we conclude 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) . Specifically, the Petitioner has provided a detailed 
job description and established that these duties, when performed within the context of its specific 
business operations, are so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree, as required by the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained . 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc ., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) .