sustained H-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10907514 
Appeal of California Service Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 29, 2020 
The Petitioner, a software, services and internet technologies company, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as a software engineer under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(l5)(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, provides additional evidence, and asserts that the Director erred. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 1 We review the questions in this matter de novo.2 Upon de nova 
review, we will sustain the appeal. 
Based upon our review of the entire record of proceedings , we conclude the Petitioner has overcome 
the basis of the Director's denial and conclude 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, as required 
by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). Specifically, the Petitioner has provided a 
detailed job description and explained why these duties, when performed within the context of its 
specific business operations, are so specialized and complex. In addition, the Petitioner established 
that the duties require specialized knowledge usually associated with a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty by outlining the educational requirements that consist of a specific range of 
acceptable degrees. 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 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
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 2 l 4(i)(l) of the 
Act. 3 Further, the Petitioner has established that the proffered position qualifies for a specialty 
occupation as defined by Section 214(i)(l) 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. 
3 See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
2