sustained H-1B Case: Power Electronics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8419276 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: WL Y 2, 2020 
The Petitioner, a designer and developer of advanced power electronics products for electrical energy 
conversion and control, 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)(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. In these proceedings, it is the 
Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361. Upon de novo 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 determine 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.