sustained H-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 20, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a home security software and technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "firmware automation engineer" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations. Immigration and Nationality 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. Upon de novo 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 find that the Petitioner has overcome the basis 
of the Director's denial. Specifically, the totality of the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary is 
qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. As a result, the Petitioner has satisfied the 
requirements under section 214(i)(2) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C). 
Though not addressed by the Director, we also find that the duties of the proffered position are so 
specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with at 
least a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 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. 
Cite as Matter of R-, Inc., ID# 5623649 (AAO Sept. 20, 2019)