sustained H-1B Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 0 6 2015 
IN RE: 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. § llOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
on Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa 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 Vermont 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. 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)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1), and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
The evidence of record also establishes that the beneficiary's educational 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 of the 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 September 30, 2014 IS 
withdrawn, and the petition is approved.