sustained H-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9257356 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 29, 2020 
The Petitioner, a software technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
software engineer under the H-1 B 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 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 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 nova. 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. The Petitioner has provided a detailed job description for the 
proffered position and a work sample by the Beneficiary corresponding to the position, and explained 
why these duties, 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, 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. § l 184(i)(l), and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc ., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) .