sustained H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10188227 
Appeal California Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 20, 2020 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in software development, 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 know ledge 
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 does not 
sufficiently establish that the certified labor condition application (LCA) corresponds to and supports 
the H-lB petition. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director erred in 
denying the petition. 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 provided a detailed job description for the proffered 
position and explained how the duties correspond with the occupational category listed on the certified 
LCA. Upon review, the LCA was certified for the appropriate occupational category and prevailing 
wage level, and therefore properly corresponds with and supports the petition. 
In addition, the duties of the proffered position, 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.