sustained H-1B Case: Manufacturing

MATTEROFC-0 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 20, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in the.__ _____________ ___, and components, 
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)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB 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 Vennont Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the proffered position 
does not qualify as a specialty occupation . On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred and 
the evidence supports an approval of the petition. 
Upon de nova review , we conclude that 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. Specifically, 
the Petitioner has provided a detailed job description and explained why the duties are specialized and 
complex. The Petitioner also explained the type of complex projects the Beneficiary will work on in 
the proffered position . In addition, the Petitioner established that the duties require specialized 
knowledge usually associated with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty by outlining 
the educational requirements that consist of a specific range of acceptable degrees. Therefore, the 
record satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). Further, the Petitioner has 
established that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation as defined 
by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of C-0 ID# 4 7054 72 (AAO Sept. 20, 2019)