sustained H-1B Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 3 0 2015 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
Thank you, 
.....-/Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals 
Office 
REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. 
The petitioner filed a Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129) with the California Service 
Center, seeking to classify 
the beneficiary as an H-1B nonimmigrant worker in a specialty 
occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record did not establish the proffered position qualified as a specialty occupation in accordance with 
the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. The petitioner submitted an appeal of the 
Director's decision. 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). Upon reviewing the entire record of proceeding as supplemented by the petitioner's 
submission on appeal, we conclude that the record now contains sufficient evidence to overcome the 
basis for the Director's decision. 
Specifically, the totality of the evidence now establishes that the nature of the proffered position's 
specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually 
associated with the attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Therefore, we conclude that the evidence of record now satisfies by a preponderance of the evidence 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). Further, the petitioner has established that the 
proffered position otherwise qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation as that term is 
defined by section 214(i)(l) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
The evidence of record also establishes that the beneficiary's credentials qualify him to perform the 
services of the pertinent specialty occupation in accordance with the relevant regulations. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. The Director's decision dated October 9, 2014 is withdrawn, 
and the petition is approved.