sustained H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8048160 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 28, 2020 
The Petitioner, a department store chain, seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily under the H-IB 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations.1 The H-IB 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 California Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 
concluding that the record did not establish that the proffered position qualified as a specialty 
occupation. The Director further determined that the Beneficiary was not qualified to occupy the 
position in the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of 
proof to demonstrate eligibility 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. 
Based upon our review of the entire record, we conclude that the Petitioner has overcome the reasons 
for the Director 's denial. On the specialty occupation issue, the Director indicated that the duties 
included excerpts from the Internet ( e.g. the Dictionary of Occupational Titles or Department of 
Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook) . The Director did not state which duties the Petitioner 
copied from those resources, and after a rigorous search we were unable to identify the functions the 
Director referenced. In other words, it appears the Petitioner included duties that were directly 
reflective of the actual work the Beneficiary would perform. 
Additionally, we determine that the Petitioner has shown 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 devised duties that comprise a position addressing the functionality of its software at 
every phase within the software development life cycle. 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 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofCha wathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation as defined by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 184(i)(l), and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
Turning to the Beneficiary's qualifications, the Director identified two issues leading her to an adverse 
determination. The first was associated with the Petitioner's degree requirements, and the second 
related to whether the Beneficiary's degree met those requirements. Though the Petitioner identified 
a range of degrees as acceptable for the proffered position that on its face may appear broad, the record 
of proceeding 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.4 
Next, the Director concluded the title of the Beneficiary's Master of Science in Technology did not 
correspond with the Petitioner's degree requirements. A review of the Beneficiary's transcripts, 
however, reveals that his completed master's-level coursework aligned with the concepts one would 
encounter in the fields the Petitioner identified that were also sufficiently related to the position's 
duties. 5 Consequently, the totality of the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary is qualified to 
perform the duties of the proffered position. As a result, the Petitioner has satisfied the requirements 
under section 214(i)(2) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
4 See Matter ofChawathe, 25 T&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
5 The Beneficiary's master's-level coursework was also a continuation of his foreign degree. However, we place no 
reliance on the Beneficiary's foreign degree, as the Petitioner did not offer an evaluation of those credentials from a reliable 
credentials evaluation service which specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials. 
2