sustained
H-1B
sustained H-1B Case: Not Specified
Decision Summary
The appeal was sustained upon de novo review of additional evidence submitted on appeal and in response to an RFE. The AAO concluded that the petitioner successfully established that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty for the position, satisfying a key criterion for a specialty occupation. The beneficiary was also found to be qualified for the position.
Criteria Discussed
Specialty Occupation Employer'S Normal Degree Requirement Beneficiary Qualifications
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services MATTER OF N-J-YM-YWHAC- APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office DATE: MAR. 2, 2016 PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B 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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record did not satisfy the requirements for an H -1 B specialty occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits both a brief and additional evidence. Upon preliminary review of the record, we issued a request for evidence (RFE), to which the Petitioner timely responded with additional documentary evidence and a letter articulating its claim that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. Based upon the totality of the evidence now before us - including the submissions on appeal and in response to our RFE - we conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) by establishing that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the particular positon for which the petition was filed. We further conclude that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of that position in accordance with the requirements at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) and (h)(4)(iii)(D). 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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013) (citing Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493, 495 (BIA 1966)). Here, that burden has been met. ORDER: The appeal is sustained. Cite as Matter ofN-J-YM-YWHAC-, ID# 13705 (AAO Mar. 2, 2016)
Use this winning precedent in your petition
MeritDraft analyzes sustained AAO decisions like this one to generate petition arguments that mirror what actually gets approved.
Build Your Winning Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.