sustained H-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7332389 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 12, 2020 
The Petitioner, a data services, business information and workflow solutions company, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S .C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB 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 does not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation because the Petitioner provided 
insufficient evidence of specialty occupation work. 1 On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional 
evidence and asserts that the Director's decision was erroneous. 
Upon de nova review, we conclude that the Petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating availability 
of in-house work for the Beneficiary. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence regarding 
its operations. The submitted evidence establishes that the Petitioner has in-house projects, and 
demonstrates the nature of the services the Beneficiary will provide in his capacity as a "software 
engineer II." We conclude that the record establishes the services the Beneficiary will perform and 
the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation as defined by section 
214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) . 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
1 While the Director acknowledges that the Beneficiary will be working in-house, the decision also contains language that 
pertains to third party worksites. The Director should ensure that decisions contain correct language prior to issuance.