sustained H-1B Case: Nanomanufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10679958 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-18) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 21, 2020 
The Petitioner, a nanomanufacturing and semiconductor solutions company, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary under the H-18 nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations.1 The H-18 
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 proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
While we are not persuaded by all of the Petitioner's arguments on appeal, upon review of the record, 
the Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, 2 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 sufficiently described its position of "technical trainer (technical publication)" and 
explained why the duties are specialized and complex. In addition, the Petitioner established that the 
duties require specialized knowledge usually associated with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty. 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. 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . 
2 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010).