sustained H-1B Case: Specialty Occupation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23932018 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimrnigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 8, 2022 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonirnrnigrant 
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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon de nova 
review, we will sustain the appeal. 1 
The record, when viewed within the context of the Petitioner's business operations , is sufficient to 
demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Beneficiary's work requires a "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" attained through a precise and specific course of study that relates 
directly and closely to the proffered position. The evidence, which includes information regarding the 
duties of the position and the corresponding knowledge to perform them, establishes that the proffered 
position requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and 
the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent. 
In light of the above, we conclude that the proffered position 1) 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) and 2) is so 
complex or unique that it can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or the equivalent, and therefore also satisfies the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
1 We review the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2