sustained H-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9945344 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 19, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "software engineer" under the H-IB 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 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 Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence.' 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 find that the Petitioner has overcome 
the basis of the Director's denial. In this matter, the record demonstrates that the proffered position is 
a specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and (iii)(A). Our review of the Beneficiary's 
academic credentials, the opinions regarding the duties, and the requirements necessary to perform 
those duties establishes that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position . 
The Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary's foreign degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's 
degree, and the degree is in a related field required by the occupation. The totality of the record 
establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Beneficiary is academically qualified to 
perform the duties of the specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(2) . 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofCha wathe, 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) .