sustained H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10548684 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 3, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB 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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation and demonstrated the availability of 
work for the Beneficiary. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence.1 We review the questions in this matter de nova. 2 Upon de nova 
review, we will sustain the appeal. 
In this matter, the record includes probative evidence corroborating the availability of work. The 
Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary onsite at its office in New York, has provided a sufficiently 
detailed job description and explained the Beneficiary's proposed work. The supporting 
documentation establish that the duties of the position require a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific discipline, or its equivalent. The proposed duties, when reviewed within the context of the 
Petitioner's business operations, are sufficient to demonstrate that the duties of the position require 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 proffered position is a specialty occupation 
under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and (iii)(A). Specifically, we conclude that the nature of the specific 
duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated 
with the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as required 
by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
The totality of the record establishes that, more Ii kely than not, there is work avai I able for the proffered 
position, the Petitioner's particular 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. The Petitioner has established that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christa 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
specialty occupation as defined by section 214(i)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1), 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), and (iii)(A)(4). Additionally, the record establishes that the Beneficiary is qualified to 
perform the duties of the proffered position by holding a qualifying degree from an accredited college 
or university in the United States. Section 214(i)(2) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(1). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2