sustained H-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9868708 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-18) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 27, 2020 
The Petitioner, a photography and social media organization, seeks to employ the Beneficiary 
temporarily as a "software engineer (3)" under the H-18 nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations.1 The H-18 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 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. 
The Petitioner has demonstrated eligibility for this classification by a preponderance of the evidence. 
The Petitioner's description, when reviewed within the broader context of its operations, depicts a 
position that includes duties sufficiently complex that a qualifying degree would be required to 
perform them. In particular, the Petitioner has devised duties that comprise a position that addresses 
issues relating to software through developing solutions and testing. 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)(I) of the Act. 4 
Considering the aggregate of the evidence as it existed before the Director, the full spectrum of the 
duties persuades us to conclude in the Petitioner's favor in the present case. As a result, the Petitioner 
has demonstrated that it is more likely than not, that the nature of the position's duties is so specialized 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Chri sta's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
4 See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
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. 5 The Petitioner has also 
established that the position satisfies the statutory definition of a specialty occupation found within 
section 214(i)(1) of the Act. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
5 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
2