sustained H-1B Case: Pharmaceutical Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8908890 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 13, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations .1 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 record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that the Director erred and the Petitioner has established eligibility for this benefit. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 2 We review the questions in this matter de nova. 3 Upon de nova 
review, we will sustain the appeal. 
In this matter, the record demonstrates that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and (iii)(A). Specifically, we conclude that the particular position is so 
complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) . The Petitioner has explained that it 
would employ the Beneficiary in .__ __________ __. and.__ __________ __. 
.__ ________ __, and provided a description of the duties and projects the Beneficiary would 
work on. The record establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the proffered position requires 
a baccalaureate or higher degree in biological sciences, pharmacology /pharmaceutical science, public 
health, or its equivalent.4 When reviewed within the context of the Petitioner's business operations, 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l( a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
2 See Section 291 of the Act; see also Matter of Chawathe, 25 T&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter o_f Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
4 On appeal, counsel seems to undermine these assertions by indicating that the Petitioner would actually accept a 
bachelor's degree from a much broader range of fields for this position . However , given the overall credibility of this 
petition, and the detailed manner in which the Petitioner has described the nature of the proffered position and its associated 
entry requirements , we conclude that it is unlikely such broad range of fields would actually prepare a beneficiary to 
perform its duties. The unsupported statements of an attorney on appeal or in a motion are not evidence. See INS v. 
we find the evidence of record sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's work requires a "body 
of highly specialized knowledge" attained through a precise and specific course of study that relates 
directly and closely to the proffered position. 
The evidence of record establishes that, more likely than not, the proffered position requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent. 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), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), and (iii)(A)(2). Additionally, the record 
establishes that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position by holding 
a U.S. master's degree in public health. Section 214(i)(2) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(l). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188 n.6 (1984); see also Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 l&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
Consistent with Phinpathya and Ramirez-Sanchez, we hereby disregard these statements. 
2