sustained H-1B Case: Semiconductor Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7052488 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 23, 2020 
The Petitioner , a semiconductor manufacturer, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"quality reliability engineer" under the H-IB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
Immigration and Nationality 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 proffered 
position did not qualify as a specialty occupation . Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
Based upon our review of the entire record, we conclude 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). The record establishes 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 bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty , or its equivalent. 
Specifically , the Petitioner has provided a detailed job description and explained why these duties , 
when perfonned within the context of its specific business operation , are specialized and complex. 
Moreover, though the Petitioner identified a range of degrees as acceptable for the proffered position 
that on its face may appear broad, the record of proceedings in this particular case establishes by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the knowledge associated with the proposed duties nonetheless 
constitutes a "body of highly specialized knowledge" such that attainment of one of those degrees 
would still constitute a degree "in the specific specialty" as contemplated by section 214(i)(l) of the 
Act. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) . 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)( 1) 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 .