sustained H-1B Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 2 5 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Sccuriiy 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigra ti on Serv i ce~ 
Administrative Appeals Oftice 
20 Massac husetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section I 0 I (a)( lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act , 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(IS)(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 Rosenb rg 
Chief , Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The 
matter is now on appeal before the Administrative Appeals Office. The appeal will be sustained. 
The petitioner filed a Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129) with the Vermont Service 
Center. The petitioner sought to classify 
the beneficiary as a 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, finding that the evidence in the 
record did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The petitioner 
submitted an appeal of the decision. 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). Upon review of 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 evidence now establishes that the employer normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Therefore, we conclude 
that the evidence of record satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). Further, the 
petitioner has also established that the proffered position otherwise qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation as defined by section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). ln 
addition, we reviewed the qualifications of the beneficiary and find that, more likely than not, he is 
qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position based on the evidence presented. 
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 o.fOtiende, 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 8, 2014 is withdrawn, 
and the petition is approved.