sustained H-1B Case: Pharmacy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 10206024 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEPT . 28, 2020 
The Petitioner, a call center pharmacy , seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 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 California 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 
submits a brief and asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition . The Petitioner bears the 
burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . Section 291 of the Act; 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369 , 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de 
nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . Upon de nova review , 
we will sustain the appeal. 
Based upon our review of the entire record of proceedings, including the submissions on appeal 
addressing the grounds for the Director's decision , we conclude that the Petitioner has overcome the 
basis of the Director's denial. The Petitioner has provided a detailed job description for the proffered 
position, and explained why these duties , when performed within the context of its specific business 
operation, are specialized and complex. Specifically, we conclude 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 baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent , as required 
by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). Further , we conclude that Petitioner has established , by a 
preponderance of the evidence, 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.