sustained H-1B Case: Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8637336 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 30, 2020 
The Petitioner , a technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB 
nonirnmigrant classification for specialty occupations . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the evidence of 
record does not establish (1) that the proffered position is a specialty occupation and (2) that the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation. 
On appeal , the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that the Director erred in denying the petition . Upon 
de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
The evidence of record establishes that the proffered position require s the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and that it is so complex or unique that it can 
be performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor 's degree in specific specialty , or the 
equivalent. Specifically , the Petitioner provided a sufficiently detailed job description and explained 
why the position is complex or unique. The Petitioner also described the systems and product involved 
and why the Beneficiary 's role in them requires specialized knowledge usually associated with a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty , or its equivalent. Therefore , we conclude that the 
evidence of record satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). The Petitioner has 
established that 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). 
The evidence of record further establishes that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a 
specialty occupation such that the requirements of Section 214(i)(2) of the Act and 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1184(i)(2) have been met. Therefore, we conclude that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform in the 
proffered position. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.