sustained H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6758348 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 12, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimrnigrant 
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 H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to 
temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both: (a) the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's 
or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into 
the position . 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . Upon de nova 
review , we will sustain the appeal. 
Based upon our review of the entire record of proceedings, we find that the Petitioner has overcome the basis 
of the Director's denial and conclude that the record establishes 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. Specifically, the 
Petitioner has provided a detailed job description and explained why these duties, when performed within 
the context of its specific business operation, are specialized and complex. Therefore, the record satisfies the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Moreover, though the Petitioner identified a range of degrees as acceptable for the proffered position that on 
its face may appear broad, the record of proceedings in this particular case establishes by a preponderance of 
the evidence that the knowledge associated with the proposed duties nonetheless constitutes a ''body of highly 
specialized knowledge" such that attainment of one of those degrees would still constitute a degree "in the 
specific specialty" as contemplated by section 214(i)(l) of the Act. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
369, 376 (AAO 2010). In sum, 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, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l ), and 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained .